OP-ED

Minneapolis resonated more than past outrages. Why?

The Conversation
February 22, 2026 


Federal agents stand amid teargas in Minneapolis, Minnesota. REUTERS/Tim Evans

By Gregory P. Magarian, Thomas and Karole Green

 Professors of Law, Washington University in St. Louis.

The president announces an aggressive, controversial policy. Large groups of protesters take to the streets. Government agents open fire and kill protesters.

All of these events, familiar from Minneapolis in 2026, also played out at Ohio’s Kent State University in 1970. In my academic writing about the First Amendment, I have described Kent State as a key moment when the government silenced free speech.

In Minneapolis, free speech has weathered the crisis better, as seen in the protests themselves, the public’s responses — and even the protest songs the two events inspired.

Protests and shootings, then and now

In 1970, President Richard Nixon announced he had expanded the Vietnam War by bombing Cambodia. Student anti-war protests, already fervent, intensified.

In Ohio, Gov. James Rhodes deployed the National Guard to quell protests at Kent State University. Monday, May 4, saw a large midday protest on the main campus commons. Students exercised their First Amendment rights by chanting and shouting at the Guard troops, who dispersed protesters with tear gas before regrouping on a nearby hill.

With the nearest remaining protesters 20 yards from the Guard troops and most more than 60 yards away, 28 guardsmen inexplicably fired on students, killing four and wounding nine others.

After the killings, the government sought to shift blame to the slain students.

Nixon stated: “When dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.”

Minneapolis in 2026 presents vivid parallels.

As part of a sweeping campaign to deport undocumented immigrants, President Donald Trump in early January 2026 deployed armed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minneapolis.

Many residents protested, exercising their First Amendment rights by using smartphones and whistles to record and call out what they saw as ICE and CBP abuses. On Jan. 7, 2026, an ICE agent shot and killed activist Renee Good in her car. On Jan. 24, two CBP agents shot and killed protester Alex Pretti on the street.

The government sought to blame Good and Pretti for their own killings.

Different public reactions

After Kent State, amid bitter conservative opposition to student protesters, most Americans blamed the fallen students for their deaths. When students in New York City protested the Kent State shootings, construction workers attacked and beat them in what became known as the “Hard Hat Riot.” Afterward, Nixon hosted construction union leaders at the White House, where they gave him an honorary hard hat.

In contrast, most Americans believe the Trump administration has used excessive force in Minneapolis. Majorities both oppose the federal agents’ actions against protesters and approve of protesting and recording the agents.

The public response to Minneapolis has made a difference. The Trump administration has announced an end to its immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities. Trump has backed off attacks on Good and Pretti. Congressional opposition to ICE funding has grown. Overall public support for Trump and his policies has fallen.

Protests, recordings and songs

What has caused people to view the killings in Minneapolis so differently from Kent State? One big factor, I believe, is how free speech has shaped the public response.

The Minneapolis protests themselves have sent the public a more focused message than what emerged from the student protests against the Vietnam War.

Anti-war protests in 1970 targeted military action on the other side of the world. Organizers had to plan and coordinate through in-person meetings and word of mouth. Student protesters needed the institutional news media to convey their views to the public.

In contrast, the anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis target government action at the protesters’ doorsteps. Organizers can use local networks and social media to plan, coordinate and communicate directly with the public. The protests have succeeded in deepening public opposition to ICE.

In addition, the American people have witnessed the Minneapolis shootings.

Kent State produced a famous photograph of a surviving student’s anguish but only hazy, chaotic video of the shootings.

In contrast, widely circulated video evidence showed the Minneapolis killings in horrifying detail. Within days of each shooting, news organizations had compiled detailed visual timelines, often based on recordings by protesters and observers, that sharply contradicted government accounts of what happened to Good and Pretti.

Finally, consider two popular protest songs that emerged from Kent State and Minneapolis: Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s “Ohio” and Bruce Springsteen’s “Streets of Minneapolis.”

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young recorded, pressed and released “Ohio” with remarkable speed for 1970. The vinyl single reached record stores and radio stations on June 4, a month after the Kent State shootings. The song peaked at No. 14 on the Billboard chart two months later.

Neil Young’s lyrics described the Kent State events in mythic terms, warning of “tin soldiers” and telling young Americans: “We’re finally on our own.” Young did not describe the shootings in detail. The song does not name Kent State, the National Guard or the fallen students. Instead, it presents the events as symbolic of a broader generational conflict over the Vietnam War.

Springsteen released “Streets of Minneapolis” on Jan. 28, 2026 — just four days after CBP agents killed Pretti. Two days later, the song topped streaming charts worldwide.

The internet and social media let Springsteen document Minneapolis, almost in real time, for a mass audience. Springsteen’s lyrics balance symbolism with specificity, naming not just “King Trump” but also victims Pretti and Good, key Trump officials Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, main Minneapolis artery Nicollet Avenue, and the protesters’ “whistles and phones,” before fading on a chant of “ICE out!”

Critics offer compelling arguments that 21st-century mass communication degrades social relationships, elections and culture. In Minneapolis, disinformation has muddied crucial facts about the protests and killings.

At the same time, Minneapolis has shown how networked communication can promote free speech. Through focused protests, recordings of government action, and viral popular culture, today’s public can get fuller, clearer information to help critically assess government actions.

Gregory P. Magarian has written and taught for 26 years about constitutional law, specializing in the freedom of expression and with secondary interests in gun regulation, law and religion, and regulations of the political process. He wrote Managed Speech: The Roberts Court's First Amendment (Oxford University Press, 2017) and has published dozens of academic articles, book chapters, and general audience essays. He has taught at Washington University since 2008 and previously taught at Villanova University. He clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice John Paul Stevens and on the U.S. District Court (D.C.) for Judge Louis Oberdorfer, and earned his law degree magna cum laude from the University of Michigan, where he was editor-in-chief of the Michigan Law Review. He received his undergraduate degree summa cum laude from Yale.

John Paul Filo. Kent State, May 4, 1970. Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress (38.00.00) © John Paul Filo/Nalley Daily

NextAll Objects

JOHN FILO. Kent State, 1970

On May 4, 1970, fourteen-year-old Mary Ann Vecchio screamed over the body of twenty-year-old Kent State student Jeffrey Miller who was fatally shot by the Ohio National Guard during a protest against the U.S. invasion of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Members of the Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine. The impact of the shootings was widely publicized and triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close.

‘Which Side Are You On?’ American protest songs have emboldened social movements for generations

Singer/Songwriter Bruce Springsteen (Shutterstock)

The Conversation

February 19, 2026 

The presence of Department of Homeland Security agents in Minnesota compelled many people there to use songs as a means of protest. Those songs were from secular as well as religious traditions.

On Jan. 8, 2026, the day after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross killed Minneapolis resident Renée Good on Portland Avenue, an anonymous post appeared on Reddit that featured an uncredited text clearly adapted from the lyrics of a Depression-era protest song from Appalachia, “Which Side Are You On?” The Reddit text criticized the recent federal presence in Minnesota and implored Minnesotans to take a stand.

In our town of Minneapolis,
There’s no neutrals here at home.
You’re either marching in the streets
or you kill for Kristi Noem
Which side are you on,
Oh which side are you on?
Which side are you on,
Oh which side are you on?
ICE is a bunch of killers
who hide behind a mask.
How do they get away with this?
That’s what you have to ask.
Which side are you on …


For centuries, songs have served as vehicles for expressing community responses to sociopolitical crises, whether government repression or corporate exploitation. “Which Side Are You On?” resonated with Minnesotans, in part because it has been recorded by numerous artists over the decades.

The song dates back to another societal struggle that occurred in another part of the United States during another crisis moment in American history. “Which Side Are You On?” has consoled and empowered countless people for generations during struggles in red as well as blue states. It has also inspired people to write new protest songs in the face of new crises.

Birth of a protest anthem

“Which Side Are You On?” was composed in 1931, a woman’s spontaneous response to a coal company’s effort to prevent miners in Harlan County, Kentucky, from joining the United Mine Workers of America. Those miners hoped the labor union would improve their working conditions and overturn imposed reductions to their wages.

In support of the coal company, sheriff J. H. Blair and armed deputies broke into the house of union organizer Sam Reece to apprehend him and locate evidence of union activity. Reece was in hiding elsewhere, but his wife, Florence, and their children were present. After ransacking the house, the sheriff and deputies left.

Florence tore a page out of a calendar and jotted down lyrics for an impromptu song, which she recalled setting to the melody of a Baptist hymn “I’m gonna land on the shore.” Others have observed that the melody in Florence’s song was similar to that of the traditional British ballad “Jack Monroe,” which features the haunting refrain “Lay the Lily Low.”

Woody Guthrie, one of America’s most celebrated folk singers of the 20th century, sang many protest songs. Al Aumuller, via the Library of Congress


“Which Side Are You On?” channeled Florence’s reaction to that traumatic experience. Throughout the 1930s, she and others sang the song during labor strikes in the Appalachian coalfields, and the lyrics were included in union songbooks. Then, in 1941, the Almanac Singers, a folk supergroup featuring Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger, recorded the song, and it reached many people beyond Appalachia.

Since then, a range of musicians – including Charlie Byrd; Peter, Paul and Mary; the Dropkick Murphys; Natalie Merchant; Ani DiFranco; and the Kronos Quartet – performed “Which Side Are You On?” in concert settings and for recordings. A solo live performance with a concert audience joining the chorus was a focal point of Seeger’s “Greatest Hits” album in 1967.

The Academy Award-winning documentary film “Harlan County U.S.A.” (1976) included a clip of Florence Reece singing her song during a 1973 strike. “Which Side Are You On?” was translated into other languages – a testament to its universal theme of encouraging solidarity to people confronting authoritarian power. Florence Reece sings ‘Which side are you on?’ four decades after she wrote the song.

Protest songs of the modern era

While the American protest song tradition can be traced back to the origins of the nation, “Which Side Are You On?” served as a prototype for the modern-era protest song because of its lyrical directness. Many memorable, risk-taking protest songs were composed in the wake of, and in the spirit of, “Which Side Are You On?”

Noteworthy are numerous protest classics in the folk vein, epitomized by a sizable part of Guthrie’s repertoire, by early Bob Dylan songs like “Masters of War” (1963), “The Times They Are a-Changin’” (1964) and “Only A Pawn in Their Game” (1964), and by Phil Ochs’ mid-1960s songs of political critique, such as “Here’s to the State of Mississippi” (1965).

But protest songs have hailed from all music genres. Rock and rhythm and blues, for instance, have spawned many iconic recordings of protest music: Sam Cooke’s “A Change Is Gonna Come” (1964), Buffalo Springfield’s “For What It’s Worth” (1966), Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son” (1969), Edwin Starr’s “War” (1970) and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young’s “Ohio” (1970) among many others.

Blues, country, reggae and hip-hop have spawned broadly inspirational protest songs, and jazz too has yielded classic protest recordings, such as Abel Meeropol’s “Strange Fruit” (1939), popularized by Billie Holiday, and Gil Scott-Heron’s 1971 recording of the jazz-poem “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.”

Indeed, there are so many enduring contributions to the American protest song canon that a list like Rolling Stone’s recent “100 Best Protest Songs of All Time” is only the tip of the iceberg. Regardless of the genre, effective protest songs retain their power to move and motivate people today despite having been composed in response to past situations or circumstances. And protest songs from the past are often adapted to help people more effectively respond to the crisis of the moment.

Songs for this moment

“Which Side Are You On?” was sung – and its theme invoked – in Minnesota throughout January 2026. On Jan. 24, shortly after Border Patrol agents killed Alex Pretti on Nicollet Avenue, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey referred to the song’s title during a public address to his constituents: “Stand up for America. Recognize that your children will ask you what side you were on.” That same day, the grassroots organization 50501: Minnesota posted online an appeal to those in power: “[E]very politician and person in uniform must ask themselves one question – which side are you on?”

The next day, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz acknowledged divisions in the U.S. during a televised briefing, urging citizens in his state and across the nation to consider the choice before them: “I’ve got a question for all of you. What side do you want to be on?”

People protesting ICE and Customs and Border Protection actions in Minnesota and elsewhere have been singing “Which Side Are You On?” and other well-known protest songs, but musicians have also been writing new protest songs about the crisis. On Jan. 8, the Dropkick Murphys posted on social media a clip of “Citizen I.C.E.,” a revamped version of the group’s 2005 song “Citizen C.I.A.,” augmented by video of the Jan. 7 fatal shooting of Renée Good. On Jan. 27, British musician Billy Bragg released “City of Heroes,” which he composed in tribute to the Minneapolis protesters.

Following suit was Bruce Springsteen, a longtime champion of the protest song legacy. On Jan. 28, Springsteen released online his newly composed and recorded “Streets of Minneapolis.” Millions of people around the world heard the song and saw its accompanying video.

On Jan. 30, Springsteen made a surprise appearance at the Minneapolis club First Avenue, performing his new song at the “Defend Minnesota” benefit concert, organized by musician Tom Morello to raise funds for the families of Good and Pretti. Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Streets of Minneapolis’ rages against the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti.


Making a difference

On the day Pretti was shot dead, hundreds of Minneapolis protesters attended a special service at Minneapolis’ Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church. Pastor Elizabeth MacAuley, in a televised interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, reflected on the role of song in helping people cope: “It’s been a time when it is pretty tempting to feel so disempowered. … [T]he singing resistance movement … brought out the hope and the grief and the rage and the beauty.”

Cooper asked: “Do you think song makes a difference?” MacAuley replied: “I know song makes a difference.”

Ted Olson, Professor of Appalachian Studies and Bluegrass, Old-Time and Roots Music Studies, East Tennessee State University

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

Counting the cost: Minnesota reels after anti-migrant ‘occupation’

By AFP
February 20, 2026


Copyright AFP Charly TRIBALLEAU
Gregory WALTON, with Romain FONSEGRIVES in Los Angeles

The Trump administration has framed its divisive push to round up undocumented migrants in Minnesota as a win for his mass deportation agenda, despite a major backlash and decisive local opposition.

Minneapolis Somali community organizer Mowlid Mohamed said the announcement the massive federal deployment was winding down was “good news, however we don’t know how true it is. It’s hard to believe anything from this administration.”

Local leaders insist the anti-migrant sweeps galvanized opposition which quickly organized to protect vulnerable people who were too terrified to venture out for fear of arrest and deportation, and to monitor and track immigration officers.

The killings of two US citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, alongside the shooting of an unarmed Venezuelan and the arrest of a photogenic five-year-old, proved to be watershed moments.

Hamline University politics professor David Schultz said those developments were what it took “to turn the tide of public opinion against the operation nationally.”

He said that “massive overreach” by the Trump administration helped rally opposition to the deployment — but that “if Trump’s goal was to scare immigrants, he did win — absolutely.”

Criticism led to an apparent re-think by the White House which swapped out the top commander overseeing the operation which was wound down last week.

The sight of detachments of disguised federal officers marauding around the Midwestern Democratic stronghold sparked wide-ranging local action to counter the sweeps.

Initial claims Good and Pretti were “domestic terrorists” were widely condemned — including from within Trump’s own Republican party.

Officials subsequently announced they would pull back on the unprecedented weeks-long surge, nonetheless touting over 4,000 arrests in the state that they say included “worst of the worst” criminals.

Just one-in-10 of the arrests could be reliably tracked using public data, making it difficult to assess how many of those swept up were truly serious criminals.



– ‘Better in our own country’ –



But nationwide data for 2026 shows just over a quarter of people currently in immigration detention nationwide are convicted criminals, and 47.4 percent are completely innocent.

Trump’s border pointman Tom Homan, who has said a limited detachment of agents will remain behind in Minnesota, claimed the withdrawal was because of improved cooperation with local authorities.

But the Democratic sheriff who oversees Minneapolis’s largest county jail has insisted no policy has changed.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, outspoken in his criticism of the surge, claimed victory, saying, “they thought they could break us, but a love for our neighbors and a resolve to endure can outlast an occupation.”

Minneapolis authorities estimated the cost of the operation at $203 million — including losses to the economy, community livelihoods, neighbors’ mental health, and to food and shelter security.

Chelsea Kane, a local who joined a network tracking ICE patrols, said the grassroots response was “something that our city is going to be proud of forever.”

“Tyranny tried to come here, tyranny tried to choke us out, and we stood up and said ‘no’.”

The software engineer, 37, said she hoped other cities could follow Minneapolis’s example in standing up to ICE.

Kane, a former soldier, also stressed that while “it’s slower on detainment in Minneapolis, they’ve just moved to the suburbs… ICE has not left the Twin Cities.”

Many local people told AFP the invasive sweeps in the state had left behind “generational trauma,” a description echoed by a Mexican migrant, Carlos, who has effectively been confined to his home since early December.

Since the announcement of the withdrawal he has left his home only twice, to work.

“I don’t go to the supermarket, or anywhere else,” said the man in his 40s who requested to use a pseudonym for fear of retaliation.

Carlos and his wife now dream of returning to Mexico, even after calling Minneapolis home for more than a decade.

“We came here fleeing our country because we had no safety there,” he said softly.

“(If) we find ourselves in the same situation here, then I think it’s better in our own country.”

Iranian students rally for second day as fears of war with US mount

By AFP
February 22, 2026


Iran's governmnet is under pressure from both dmoestic protests and the threat of US military action - Copyright AFP Atta KENARE

Iranian students gathered for fresh pro- and anti-government rallies Sunday commemorating those killed in recent protests, as fears loomed of renewed conflict with the United States over the country’s nuclear programme.

The initial demonstrations were sparked in December by economic hardship in the sanctions-hit country, but quickly expanded into mass anti-government protests that marked one of the largest challenges to the Islamic republic’s clerical leadership in years.

US President Donald Trump had initially cheered on the protesters, threatening to intervene on their behalf as authorities launched a deadly crackdown, but his threats soon shifted to Iran’s nuclear programme, which the West believes is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

Washington and Tehran have since returned to the negotiating table, but Trump has simultaneously pursued a major military build-up in the Middle East aimed at pressuring Iran to cut a deal.

Following campus rallies commemorating the protest dead on Saturday, the Fars news agency on Sunday published videos of fresh crowds of dozens of people waving Iranian flags and carrying memorial photographs at universities in the capital Tehran.

One showed a rowdy gathering at Sharif University of Technology shouting “death to the shah” — a reference to the monarchy ousted by the 1979 Islamic revolution — as they faced off with another group, with men in uniforms between them.

Fars said there had been “tensions” at at least three universities in Tehran where some students chanted “anti-establishment” slogans.

Iran International, a media outlet based outside the country and branded a “terrorist” organisation by Tehran, shared a video on social media of students holding up the pre-revolution flag at Sharif University, as well as videos of rallies at other institutions of higher learning.

A video geolocated by AFP of what appeared to be the demonstration at Sharif University showed a large crowd chanting anti-government slogans as they thronged around students waving the flag of the toppled monarchy.

The authorities acknowledge more than 3,000 deaths in the unrest, including members of the security forces and bystanders, but say the violence was caused by “terrorist acts” fuelled by Iran’s enemies.

The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), however, has recorded more than 7,000 killings in the crackdown, the vast majority protesters, though the toll may be far higher.



– Negotiations –



Representatives of the US and Iran recently met in Geneva for a second round of Oman-mediated nuclear talks, with Iran promising to send a draft proposal for a deal to avert military action in the coming days.

Axios reported on Sunday, citing an unnamed senior US official, that if Iran submitted its proposal in the next 48 hours, Washington was ready to meet again “in Geneva on Friday in order to start detailed negotiations to see if we can get a nuclear deal”.

The US has dispatched two aircraft carriers to the region, along with other jets and ships, and has also shored up its air defences in the Middle East.

Trump’s chief Middle East negotiator Steve Witkoff said Saturday in a Fox News interview that the president was questioning why Iran had not yet given in to US pressure.

“He’s curious as to why they haven’t… I don’t want to use the word ‘capitulated’, but why they haven’t capitulated,” he said.

“Why, under this pressure, with the amount of seapower and naval power over there, why haven’t they come to us and said, ‘We profess we don’t want a weapon, so here’s what we’re prepared to do’?”

Iran has long denied it is trying to produce nuclear weapons, but insists on its right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes.



– Fears of war –



A previous round of nuclear diplomacy last year was interrupted by Israel’s surprise bombing campaign against the Islamic republic.

That sparked a 12-day conflict in June that the US briefly joined with strikes on nuclear facilities

Iran has maintained that it will defend itself in the event of any new attack.

Despite the latest talks, Iranians’ fears of a new conflict have grown.

“I don’t sleep well at night even while taking pills,” Tehran resident Hamid told AFP, saying he worried for his “family’s health… my kids and grandchildren”.

IT technician Mina Ahmadvand, 46, believes that “at this stage, war between Iran and the US as well as Israel is inevitable and I’ve prepared myself for that eventuality”.

“I don’t want war to happen, but one should not fool around with the realities on the ground.”

The concerns have prompted several foreign countries to urge their citizens to leave Iran, including Sweden, Serbia, Poland and Australia, which warned “commercial flights are currently available but this could change quickly”.

Fears of renewed conflict haunt Tehran as US issues threats


By AFP
February 21, 2026


Fears of renewed conflict haunt Tehran, as the United States and Iran trade threats of military action, even as the arch-foes pursue fresh negotiations - Copyright AFP -

Tehran resident Hamid struggles to sleep as fears of renewed conflict haunt the Iranian capital after last year’s 12-day war with Israel.

“I don’t sleep well at night even while taking pills,” Hamid told AFP, as he expressed concern for his “family’s health… my kids and grandchildren”.

The city woke up to blasts overnight from June 12 to 13 last year as Iran’s arch-enemy Israel launched an unprecedented military campaign.

The war erupted as Iran was preparing for another round of talks with the United States, which briefly joined Israel in attacking key Iranian nuclear sites.

The attacks prompted Iran to respond with drone and missile strikes, with thousands of people killed in Iran and dozens in Israel.

Iran has now resumed talks with Washington, with Iran insisting they be limited to the nuclear issue, though Washington has previously pushed for Tehran’s ballistic missiles programme and support for armed groups in the region to be on the table.

Still, the outcome of diplomacy remains uncertain.

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump said that “bad things” would happen if Tehran did not strike a deal within 10 days, which he subsequently extended to 15.

In this atmosphere, Hamid is worried about his children and grandchildren.

“I’ve lived my life, but they haven’t done anything good in their lives, they had no fun, no comfort, no leisure and no peace,” he said.

“I want them to at least experience life for a bit. But I’m afraid they might not get the chance.”

Others share his concerns.

Hanieh, a ceramist from Tehran, thinks war will occur “within 10 days”.

The 31-year-old has stored some essentials at her home to get through a possible military attack by the United States after its build-up in the region.

“I am getting more scared because my mother and I had lots of difficulties during the past 12-day war,” she told AFP. “We had to go to another city.”

Mina Ahmadvand, 46, also believes another conflict is in store.

“I think at this stage, war between Iran and the US as well as Israel is inevitable and I’ve prepared myself for that eventuality,” the IT technician told AFP.

“I bought a dozen canned foods including tuna fish and beans as well as packs of biscuits, bottled water and some extra batteries, among other things.”



– ‘Lessons learnt’ –



Iranians are applying “the lessons learnt during the 12-day war”, Hanieh said, as windows taped up with duct tape can be seen across Tehran.

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned that any military campaign against Iran would lead to a “regional war”.

Tehran has repeatedly said it would target Israel and US bases in the region, as when it attacked a US base in Qatar during the 12-day war.

The situation has forced Iranians to follow the news closely, and only adds to anxiety over surging prices and the plunging national currency following widespread protests.

On Saturday, the euro was trading at above 1.9 million rials while the US dollar surpassed the 1.6 million mark.

For Hanieh, there has been a sense of “life on hold” since the mass protests and Iranian communications shutdown that lasted nearly three weeks.

But in Tehran, shops and offices remain open, even though cafes and restaurants are mostly closed for the month of Ramadan, which started on Thursday in Shiite Iran.

Meanwhile, Ahmadvand is preparing for the worst.

“I don’t want war to happen, but one should not fool around with the realities on the ground.”

Op-Ed 

As Trump Threatens Iran, We’re On the Brink of a Generational Catastrophe

A US war with Iran would be illegal, immoral, 

and dangerous. We can still stop it.

By Negin Owliaei , TruthoutPublishedFebruary 20, 2026

Vice President JD Vance, Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio look on as Trump holds up a resolution during the inaugural meeting of the "Board of Peace" in Washington, D.C., on February 19, 2026. Trump used the meeting to threaten a U.S. escalation against Iran.

Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images

Wielding a golden gavel and a playlist featuring the Beach Boys, Donald Trump ushered in a new era of international humiliation at the inaugural meeting of the U.S.-led Board of Peace. The new body, while established by Trump, has been tasked by a UN Security Council resolution to administer Gaza’s reconstruction efforts. But Trump has also suggested his ambitions for the board go far beyond Gaza, saying it would “almost be looking over the United Nations and making sure it runs properly.”

Trump has demanded that world leaders pony up $1 billion for a permanent seat on the ostensible peacekeeping body, even as he defunds the actual peacekeeping mission of the United Nations, which he has suggested his new institution will supplant. Altogether, the February 19 inaugural meeting was a perfect distillation of Trump’s preferred method of extortion masked as diplomacy.

As soon as the Board of Peace was created, Palestinians and solidarity activists decried it as a farce and as a naked display of imperial ambition; the entire reason for its existence is to fully sidestep Palestinian autonomy in the rebuilding of Gaza. But any lingering doubts about the president’s lack of interest in peace were fully wiped away by his multiple references to bombing Iran during the Board of Peace’s first meeting, which took place in the newly branded Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace.

“Bad things will happen,” Trump said, if Iran does not submit to U.S. negotiations on a nebulous deal.

Meanwhile Trump has initiated a huge military buildup near Iran including multiple aircraft carriers and warships. The buildup is so massive it has drawn parallels to the buildup preceding the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The buildup comes on the heels of the U.S.’s June 2025 aggression against Iran, when the U.S. bombed multiple Iranian nuclear sites during negotiations over the same nuclear program that the U.S. claims to be negotiating over today. That attack came during Israel’s 12-day war with Iran, which was conducted with U.S. arms and logistical support and funded with the help of U.S. taxpayers. During that war, more than 1,000 Iranians were killed. Trump has now said that Iran has “10 to 15 days” to make a deal. Following the charade of last year’s negotiations, analysts expect a U.S. attack on Iran to now come at any moment. New reporting has suggested that U.S. strikes could even target individual Iranian leaders, with the aim of bringing about regime change in the country.

New reporting has suggested that U.S. strikes could target individual Iranian leaders, with the aim of bringing about regime change in the country.

A war between the U.S. and Iran would be undeniably disastrous. U.S. allies across the region have spent weeks urging restraint. Even the U.K., in an uncharacteristically defiant move, has reportedly told Trump it would not allow the U.S. military to use Diego Garcia, the Indian Ocean island that the two countries ethnically cleansed in order to build a military base, to bomb Iran, for fear of violating international law.

The majority of people in the U.S. are also against such an attack. Multiple U.S. polls from recent weeks have shown broad resistance to the use of military force in Iran, and a strong desire for Trump to seek congressional approval before launching an attack against another country.


Trump Admin Contradicts Itself on Rationale for Potential Iran Strikes
The White House cites Iran’s nuclear capabilities — while maintaining their nuclear facilities were “obliterated.”  By Sharon Zhang , Truthout February 20, 2026

So how did we arrive in this position, where, despite widespread domestic and international opposition, Trump’s murderous impulses are treated as inevitable? Over and over, pundits have framed this as a war that the U.S. is falling into, or one that it is sleepwalking toward. But there is not some gravitational force pulling the U.S. and Iran toward major military catastrophe. This is a war of choice by the U.S., and we must remember that it could be stopped in an instant.

This is a war of choice by the U.S., and we must remember that it could be stopped in an instant.

We’ve been on a slow march toward this outcome, both over the decades that the powers that be in the U.S. and Israel have worked to manufacture consent for military action against Iran, and more deeply since they broke the dam on such an attack last June. There has been no accountability for that illegal attack, just as there has been no accountability for the U.S. kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro — neither move was met with articles of impeachment for Trump nor for the cabinet members who orchestrated the attack. And there has been no accountability for the U.S.’s backing of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, even when some of those backers acknowledge themselves that U.S. support for the Israeli military went against domestic law.

And even before these last years, there has been no real accountability for the invasion of Iraq, to which a war with Iran has long been compared. Many of the architects of that war have proceeded to build storied careers in government and media without seeing so much as a single consequence for their devastating actions. In a grim twist of irony, even former Bush speechwriter David Frum — the same man who labeled Iran a member of the “axis of evil” — is now wringing his hands about the lack of consent from Congress or the U.S. public for a regime change war in the Middle East, writing: “We are poised days away from a major regime-change war in the Middle East, and not only has Congress not been consulted, but probably not 1 American in 10 has any idea that such a war is imminent.”

Trump is getting away with this because, for decades, we have let warmongers unleash their worst with little to no repercussions. But when it comes to Congress, part of the lack of opposition is because, at some level, there actually is a lack of opposition: Coercing other countries, especially Iran, has long been a bipartisan pastime.

During the Obama administration, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) bucked his own party to come out against the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, which is widely considered to have been one of the most successful tools keeping escalations like this from happening. After Trump’s prior attack against Iran in June, Schumer hit him from the right, accusing the president of folding too early and letting Iran “get away with everything.” Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) has been largely silent about Trump’s saber-rattling, save for a singular reference to Congress’s authority to declare war.


House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has been largely silent about Trump’s saber-rattling, save for a singular reference to Congress’s authority to declare war.

While some lawmakers have been more vocal in their opposition to Trump’s buildup, the only halfway meaningful response from Congress to the Trump administration has come from Reps. Ro Khanna (D-California) and Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), who are moving to force a war powers vote next week, to bring Congress on the record about whether Trump should be forced to terminate his military plans against Iran. But while these kinds of votes are necessary — anything that could potentially stop such a disaster is necessary — real opposition to Trump’s warmaking would require more than these process-oriented critiques.

A war with Iran is wrong because it’s morally wrong — not only because it’s illegal under the Constitution, or under international law. Laws can be useful tools for stopping military action — indeed, it appears the U.K.’s concerns about running afoul of international law could in fact materially affect Trump’s plans for military action. But we must be honest about the limitations of such laws as we hear the drumbeats for war, illegal or not, grow louder. We need real, principled opposition that will put fear of accountability into the hearts of the architects and defenders of this aggression, whether that comes from the streets or the ballot box or legal avenues or the halls of Congress.

Inherent in some of the critiques of Trump’s buildup is the idea that a war with Iran could be conducted a “right” way — with congressional permission, with actual strategic objectives, or as a more limited air war compared to a 2003-style invasion with boots on the ground. But there is no right way to conduct this war; no matter what happens, no matter who approves it, it will be deadly and dangerous and lead to further terror across the entirety of the region.


There is no right way to conduct this war; no matter what happens, no matter who approves it, it will be deadly and dangerous and lead to further terror across the entirety of the region.

This escalation also comes at an especially brutal time for Iranian civilians, who faced a marked increase in state repression in response to anti-government protests earlier this year. As U.S. airpower moved into place, Iranians were observing traditional 40-day mourning ceremonies for the thousands of people killed in the violent crackdown on protesters. The grief has been heavy to bear. And as Hanieh Jodat wrote in Truthout last month, the back-and-forth threats from the United States have added a burden of psychological warfare to those of us with ties to Iran — we were already struggling to reach loved ones in our homeland due to the state-imposed communications shutdown there.

While some in the diaspora have cheered on an invasion out of rage toward the Iranian state, those of us who study history know there is no such thing as bombing a country into liberation, especially not at the hands of the same people who have spent years backing genocide in Palestine. As it did last year, the Iranian state will use the instability and fear of a war to further crack down on labor, student, and feminist movements pushing for liberatory change within the country. A war would only inflict further trauma on a population onto which a desperate amount of violence and repression has been forced in under a year.

Back in July, after Israel’s assault on Iran, a video emerged that put to rest the already laughable idea that Israel’s “precision attacks” were targeting Iranian military sites, as if that would have made a war of choice more defensible. The video shows a densely populated street in Tehran’s Tajrish district. Two missiles strike in quick succession, one hitting a building and another hitting the city street, forcefully pushing cars into the air. The video is dramatic and heartbreaking, especially because it features a popular area that anyone familiar with Tehran likely knows well. Iranian authorities said that 17 people were killed in the strike, including two children and one pregnant person.

That is what war looks like. That is what the U.S. could impose on Iran yet again if we do not act to stop it. And the consequences this time around could be far more wide-ranging and disastrous for everyone involved.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Negin Owliaei is Truthout‘s editor-in-chief. An award-winning journalist, she previously worked at Al Jazeera‘s flagship daily news podcast, The Take. She lives in Washington, D.C.

Israel Is Expanding Control in West Bank Under Guise of “Heritage Preservation”

New changes could undermine Palestinian sovereignty and pave the way for further illegal settlements in the West Bank.

By Theia Chatelle , 

Truthout

February 21, 2026

This picture taken on February 12, 2026, shows a view of the archaeological site of Sebastia, west of the occupied West Bank city of Nablus.

Zain JAAFAR / AFP via Getty Images

Ramallah — On February 8, the Cabinet of Israel approved a slew of changes to further undermine Palestinian self-rule in the West Bank.

While still awaiting final approval by the Knesset, the changes, according to a statement released by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, “will continue to bury the idea of a Palestinian state.”

Under the Oslo Accords, Areas A and B of the West Bank — which together comprise 40 percent of the West Bank — fall under the control of the Palestinian Authority.

However, due to the new changes approved by the Cabinet of Israel this month, the Israeli Civil Administration, which is in charge of civil affairs in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, will now claim jurisdiction in Areas A and B under the guise of environmental and archaeological protection.

Archaeological preservation of Jewish heritage in the West Bank has long been used as a justification for the assertion of Israeli sovereignty and the expansion of Israeli settlements there, which are illegal under international law.

Palestinians Displaced in West Bank by Israeli Settlers Ask: Where Can We Go?
Settlers have destroyed homes in the West Bank, forcibly displacing Palestinians from nearly 50 Bedouin communities. By Theia Chatelle , Truthout August 9, 2025

The Cabinet decisions build on the 2023 antiquities bill, which created a body called the Israel Antiquities Authority that was given expanded legal authority to extend into parts of the West Bank, in order to assert responsibility for archaeological sites there. Now, Israeli politicians are seeking to establish a new Israeli body called the West Bank Heritage Authority, which would have even more invasive power, regulating vast swaths of Palestinian territory and representing another step toward de facto annexation.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs, located in Hebron, and the Palestinian city of Sebastia, which independent journalist Jasper Nathaniel has reported on as emblematic of Israel’s use of religiously significant sites to justify expulsion and land theft, are two sites that have been subject to varying degrees of Israeli control; under new legal frameworks, including the antiquities bill and Israeli Cabinet decisions, they are increasingly incorporated into Israeli-managed heritage development.

The slew of changes by the Israeli Cabinet also opened the Palestinian land registries, which document land claims across the West Bank. These registries had previously been kept confidential due to concerns that Israeli settlers and settlement organizations would use the information to assert fraudulent claims to Palestinian land.


“Everywhere here has heritage. It’s just an excuse to expand settlements and take Palestinian land.”

Allowing, for the first time, Israelis to purchase land directly from Palestinians in Areas A and B could open up the potential for the establishment of illegal Israeli settlements in the middle of Palestinian cities like Ramallah, which have served as the last strongholds of Palestinian self-rule in the West Bank.

Ubai Aboudi, the director of BISAN, a human rights organization based in Ramallah, told Truthout in an interview that the spate of Cabinet decisions is about continuing the farce of a legal regime enforced by the Israeli occupation in the West Bank that is meant to legitimize the settlement enterprise.

At face value, the changes might appear to be piecemeal and far from solidifying the path to legal annexation, as many headlines have proclaimed. But the changes, if nothing else, are just another step by the Israeli government to undermine Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank.

While the Oslo agreements created the framework of Palestinian self-rule in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, the constant drumbeat of settlement expansion and Israeli military activity in the territory has shattered any hope of Palestinian self-rule in the short term, according to Shawan Jabarin, the director of Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organization that has frequently been targeted by Israeli authorities, who joined Truthout for an interview at the organization’s offices in Ramallah.

He emphasized that this “farce” of a legal regime serves Israel’s interests in that it justifies expansion and violations of international law beyond simply expelling Palestinians from their land.

“For example, when it comes to house demolitions, they demolish the home because you did not get a permit. ‘But you did not give it to me,’” Jabarin said.

On February 15, the Israeli Cabinet also announced, for the first time since 1967, that it would begin a process of registering Palestinian land in Area C, which is under the civil and military control of Israel. Under this new change, invalid property claims, to be decided by the Israeli Civil Administration, will lead to “vacant” land being claimed as Israeli state property.

Allowing the Israeli Civil Administration jurisdiction in Area A, which per the Oslo Accords should be under the full civil and military control of the Palestinian Authority, not only undermines the limited degree of Palestinian self-rule in its fragmented scattering of municipalities but also legally justifies the almost constant intervention by Israeli forces within Area A — which includes escorting Israeli settlers into religious sites such as Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus.

Jabarin said, “If you look at all of these things and put them together, you will see the complete picture: ‘We do not want Palestinians there. We do everything in our capacity in order to push them out and bring in settlers and replace the Palestinians with settlers.’”

For Aboudi, environmental and archaeological protection are simply a means to an end for Ministers Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir to put into reality Israel’s Decisive Plan, which Smotrich published in 2017. It calls for a continual expansion of settlements and Jewish sovereignty in the West Bank, including the forcible expulsion of Palestinians.

“Everywhere here has heritage. It’s just an excuse to expand settlements and take Palestinian land,” Aboudi said.

The Israeli NGO Emek Shaveh, which advocates for access to religious sites for both Palestinians and Israelis, said in a statement, “Taken together, these developments constitute a fundamental turning point. Empowering an Israeli civilian authority to carry out enforcement measures, expropriations, and excavations deep inside Palestinian Authority Areas B and A effectively dismantles the framework established under the Oslo II Accords.”

At least 1,050 Palestinians, including at least 230 children, have been killed by Israeli forces in the West Bank between October 7, 2023, and January 27, 2026, according to a UNRWA situation report. Israeli forces on Feb. 17 invaded a village just south of Jenin, chasing local Palestinian journalists with a military vehicle.

The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement, “The ministry stresses that these measures amount to de facto annexation of Palestinian land and directly contradict the declared position of U.S. President Donald Trump rejecting annexation and settlement expansion.”

Whether the Trump administration would put that relationship in jeopardy during what appears to be an increasingly likely conflict with Iran — as the U.S. reportedly shifts military assets into the Gulf — is unlikely.

At play is also a careful calculus on the part of the Israeli government to continue the project outlined by Smotrich, but without drawing the ire of the Trump administration, which has stated that it opposes Israel’s annexation of the West Bank.

But on the ground in Ramallah, many Palestinian residents who spoke with Truthout did not appear concerned about the Israeli cabinet decisions, with many stating that these changes do little to change the reality for most Palestinians.

The Palestinian economy is on the brink. Since October 7, 2023, Palestinians have been largely banned from working inside Israel, cutting out a significant source of income, with daily wages in the West Bank hovering at 125 shekels instead of 250 in Israel.

With the start of Ramadan on Tuesday, festivities are muted. Where there would typically be lights dangling from apartments in downtown Ramallah al-Tahta, this year, despite the ceasefire in Gaza, which one resident described as “in name only,” celebrations remain subdued.

These changes by the Israeli Cabinet are just another step that cements what Jabarin called “a complete war on Palestinian life on the West Bank meant to kill any hope for self-determination.”


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Theia Chatelle  is a conflict correspondent based between Ramallah and New Haven. She has written for The Intercept, The Nation, The New Arab, etc. She is an alumnus of the International Women’s Media Foundation and the Rory Peck Trust.

CHRISTIAN ZIONISM

Trump's Israel ambassador ignites international firestorm with 'deranged' 

new remarks

Huckabee has appeared to endorse the idea of “Greater Israel”  referring to the territorial aspirations of some Israelis to significantly expand the nation’s borders.

Alexander Willis
February 22, 2026 

RAW STORY

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee looks on during an interview with Reuters in Jerusalem, September 10, 2025. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun/File Photo

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee ignited an international firestorm this weekend after appearing to endorse the idea of Israel taking control of the entire Middle East, remarks that prompted a swift response from more than a dozen Arab nations, including the United States’ own allies.

Huckabee sat down with conservative media figure Tucker Carlson recently for a lengthy interview that was published on Saturday, during which, Carlson pressed the former Arkansas governor on specifically what regions in the Middle East he believed Israel to be Biblically entitled to.

“Does Israel have the right to that land?” Carlson asked, making reference to what he described as “basically the entire Middle East,” including Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and sizable portions of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Jordan.

“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee responded.

The comments drew an immediate backlash from more than a dozen Arab nations in the Middle East and North Africa, all of which signed onto a joint statement condemning the remarks as “extremist and lacking any sound basis,” NBC News reported Sunday.

Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, described Huckabee’s remarks as “extremist rhetoric,” and Egypt called them a “flagrant breach” of international law, NBC News reported.

Huckabee has appeared to endorse the idea of “Greater Israel” in the past, with “Greater Israel” referring to the territorial aspirations of some Israelis to significantly expand the nation’s borders. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who was indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes last year – said as recently as last August that he “absolutely” subscribed to a “vision” for “Greater Israel.”“I don’t think we have fully [realized] how deranged the people driving US policy truly are,” wrote Bruno Macaes, an author, writer and geopolitical analyst, in a social media post on X Sunday in response to Huckabee’s remarks.

Battered by Gaza war, Israel’s tech sector in recovery mode


By AFP
February 20, 2026


US chip giant Nvidia said in December it would create a massive research and development centre in northern Israel - Copyright AFP Idrees MOHAMMED
Delphine MATTHIEUSSENT

Israel’s vital tech sector, dragged down by the war in Gaza, is showing early signs of recovery, buoyed by a surge in defence innovation and fresh investment momentum.

Cutting-edge technologies represent 17 percent of the country’s GDP, 11.5 percent of jobs and 57 percent of exports, according to the latest available data from the Israel Innovation Authority (IIA), published in September 2025.

But like the rest of the economy, the sector was not spared the knock-on effects of the war, which began in October 2023 and led to staffing shortages and skittishness from would-be backers.

Now, with a ceasefire largely holding in Gaza since October, Israel’s appeal is gradually returning, as illustrated in mid-December, when US chip giant Nvidia announced it would create a massive research and development centre in the north that could host up to 10,000 employees.

“Investors are coming to Israel nonstop,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the time.

After the war, the recovery can’t come soon enough.

“High-tech companies had to overcome massive staffing cuts, because 15 to 20 percent of employees, and sometimes more, were called up” to the front as reservists, IIA director Dror Bin told AFP.

To make matters worse, in late 2023 and 2024, “air traffic, a crucial element of this globalised sector, was suspended, and foreign investors froze everything while waiting to see what would happen”, he added.

The war also sparked a brain drain in Israel.

Between October 2023 and July 2024, about 8,300 employees in advanced technologies left the country for a year or more, according to an IIA report published in April 2025.

The figure represents around 2.1 percent of the sector’s workforce.

The report did not specify how many employees left Israel to work for foreign companies versus Israeli firms based abroad, or how many have since returned to Israel.



– Rise in defence startups –



In 2023, the tech sector far outpaced GDP growth, increasing by 13.7 percent compared to 1.8 percent for GDP.

But the sector’s output stagnated in 2024 and 2025, according to IIA figures.

Industry professionals now believe the industry is turning a corner.

Israeli high-tech companies raised $15.6 billion in private funding in 2025, up from $12.2 billion in 2024, according to preliminary figures published in December by Startup Nation Central (SNC), a non-profit organisation that promotes Israeli innovation.

Deep tech — innovation based on major scientific or engineering advances such as artificial intelligence, biotech and quantum computing — returned in 2025 to its pre-2021 levels, according to the IIA.

The year 2021 is considered a historic peak for Israeli tech.

The past two years have also seen a surge in Israeli defence technologies, with the military engaged on several fronts from Lebanon and Syria to Iran, Yemen, Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Between July 2024 and April 2025, the number of startups in the defence sector nearly doubled, from 160 to 312, according to SNC.

Of the more than 300 emerging companies collaborating with the research and development department of Israel’s defence ministry, “over 130 joined our operations during the war”, Director General Amir Baram said in December.

Until then, the ministry had primarily sourced from Israel’s large defence firms, said Menahem Landau, head of Caveret Ventures, a defence tech investment company.

But he said the war pushed the ministry “to accept products that were not necessarily fully finished and tested, coming from startups”.

“Defence-related technologies have replaced cybersecurity as the most in-demand high-tech sector,” the reserve lieutenant colonel explained.

“Not only in Israel but worldwide, due to the war between Russia and Ukraine and tensions with China”.