It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
U.S. Southern Command has conducted another strike on a suspected smuggling boat in the Eastern Pacific, destroying the vessel and killing six male suspects, the command announced Sunday.
The strike was the 45th lethal attack on a suspected drug smuggling boat since September. To date, the campaign has resulted in at least 157 fatalities, according to the New York Times, plus an unknown quantity of drugs destroyed. The Trump administration claims that the strikes (and a ramp-up in nonlethal Coast Guard interdictions) have increased the price of cocaine, reversing a years-long trend of cheaper and more abundant supplies on U.S. streets.
The administration has encouraged its Latin American partner nations to step up their own interdiction efforts, and there have been some early results in Mexico, El Salvador and Ecuador. The joint counter-narcotics campaign has been rebranded "Shield of Americas," and is helmed by the departing Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem.
"The heart of our agreement is a commitment to using lethal military force to destroy the sinister cartels and terrorist networks," Trump said in a launch ceremony for the new initiative last weekend. "Once and for all, we’ll get rid of them."
The lethal strikes remain controversial: the campaign has raised questions about the legality of killing men who were previously arrested as criminal suspects. The airborne interdictions have been criticized by many legal experts at home and abroad, and may fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The White House and the Pentagon maintain that cocaine importation is a form of violence, and that the strikes are a form of collective self-defense against the drug.
Kharg Island: Iran’s vital oil hub in the crosshairs?
A satellite image of Iran's Kharg Island, which hosts the country’s main crude export terminal - Copyright EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY/AFP -
Susannah Walden
Kharg Island, a scrubby stretch of land in the northern Gulf, handles almost all of Iran’s crude exports and any attempt to seize it would mark a major escalation in the conflict, analysts say.
The US and Israel have so far treaded carefully around the island, but an Axios report over the weekend cited Trump administration officials saying capturing Kharg was on the table as the war in the Middle East persists.
The island, located around 30 kilometres (19 miles) off the Iranian mainland, handles roughly 90 percent of Iran’s crude exports, according to a JP Morgan note released Sunday.
Any move on the territory, which is about one-third the size of Manhattan, would have swift repercussions, experts say.
“A direct strike would immediately halt the bulk of Iran’s crude exports, likely triggering severe retaliation in the Strait of Hormuz or against regional energy infrastructure,” JP Morgan said.
Iranian strikes have all but halted maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz — through which a fifth of global crude oil and liquefied natural gas normally pass — and have also impacted oil infrastructure in other Gulf states.
But Iranian energy assets have not been degraded so far and targeting the island would be “a very risky move”, Farzin Nadimi, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told AFP.
Iran is not only “experienced in using alternatives” in wartime, it could “cause a lot more damage on the Gulf oil and gas installations if they want to and they can do a lot more very quickly, and everybody knows that”.
“I don’t think that seizing the island will go any further than US Congressional debates,” he added — the prospect having been discussed in Washington since the hostage crisis that started in 1979 during the foundation of the Islamic republic.
Kharg underwent key developments during Iran’s oil expansion in the 1960s and 1970s, with much of the country’s coast too shallow for supertankers.
Iran has looked to diversify its export capabilities by opening the Jask terminal outside the Strait of Hormuz chokepoint in the Gulf of Oman in 2021, but Kharg remains “a critical vulnerability” for Iran, JP Morgan said.
“It is a cornerstone of Iran’s economy and a major source of revenue for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard,” JP Morgan added, referring to the well-resourced ideological branch of the Islamic republic’s army.
– ‘Very difficult’ –
The war has sent oil prices soaring, although US President Donald Trump’s suggestion on Monday that the conflict could end soon has calmed the market.
Over the weekend, the director of the White House National Energy Dominance Council Jarrod Agen told Fox News that “what we want to do is get such massive oil reserves in Iran out of the hands of terrorists”.
Also in recent days, the Washington Post reported heightened speculation that US ground forces could be being prepared to deploy, citing analysts saying Kharg Island would be an early target.
Nadimi said Washington could move to seize the island when hostilities end, but that it was “not a wise move” during combat when Kharg is “almost an entire island of oil facilities and pipelines and tank farms”.
“It is very difficult to wage a military operation on that particular island,” he said.
But other oil infrastructure could be in the crosshairs, with Trump repeatedly referencing his operation to topple Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and gain access to the country’s oil reserves in January as a blueprint.
Iran — the fourth-biggest crude producer within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) — vowed not one litre of oil would be exported from the Gulf while the war continues.
Any attack on its infrastructure would get an “eye for an eye” response, it said.
On Saturday, Israel launched its first attack of the war on oil facilities in Iran, but it said they were used “to operate military infrastructure”.
The same day, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid argued for stronger steps, saying in an X post: “Israel needs to destroy all of Iran’s oil fields and energy industry on Kharg Island; that’s what will crush Iran’s economy and bring down the regime.”
Thai-Owned Bulker Ablaze in the Straits of Hormuz With Three Crew Missing
Mayuree Nari was struck by two projectiles and set ablaze off Oman (Royal Thai Navy photos)
The Thai-owned bulker Mayuree Naree (30,193 dwt) was set ablaze off the coast of Oman on Wednesday morning, March 11, as one of possibly four commercial ships attacked by Iran. Rescue efforts are underway as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) released a statement saying ships must request permission before attempting to enter the Straits.
The Royal Oman Navy responded to the Mayuree Naree while the Royal Thai Navy said it was coordinating and monitoring the rescue operations. The vessel reported being struck by two projectiles in the stern and the engine room, which caused explosions and a fire. The ship was traveling with ballast from the United Arab Emirates and was approximately 11 nautical miles off the coast of Oman.
The vessel’s owners, Precious Shipping, reported that the engine room was damaged and that 20 crewmembers had abandoned the ship in a lifeboat. They were rescued by the Omani Navy and taken ashore.
Three crewmembers are reported still aboard the ship, with the vessel’s owner saying that it believed they were trapped in the engine room. The Royal Thai Navy said additional rescue operations were underway, while at least one report said the crewmembers had stayed aboard the vessel to aid with the salvage efforts. UK Maritime Trade Operations later reported that the fires had been extinguished.
The shipping company asserts it was following the protocols and had strict safety measures in place. It said it was in constant contact with the UKMTO before the ship attempted the transit. It reports the ship is covered under War Risk Insurance.
The attack on the Mayuree Naree was the most serious of those reported by UKMTO. The containership One Majesty (79,443 dwt) owned by Mitsui OSK Lines and operated by Ocean Network Express (ONE) also reported being struck. It was about 25 nautical miles northwest of Ras Al Khaimah in the UAE. Vanguard Tech reports the ship suffered a 10-centimeter hole and was heading to a safe anchorage. The bulker Star Gwyneth (82,790 dwt) was struck by an unknown projectile approximately 50 nautical miles northwest of Dubai.
The IRGC said the Thai vessel had ignored warnings and attempted to pass through the Straits without permission. Iran had earlier said it would permit international shipping that had no ties to the United States or Israel to transit the Strait. It calls ships from the U.S., Israel, or their allies, or carrying oil cargo from these countries, “legitimate targets.” It is also claiming to have attacked another vessel, the containership Express Rome (122,961 dwt), which it alleges was also attempting to enter the Straits of Hormuz. It associated the vessel with Israel. The ship’s last AIS signal shows it is anchored along with a large grouping of vessels northeast of Dubai.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) issued a warning this morning (March 11) to civilians that the Iranian regime is using civilian ports along the Strait of Hormuz to conduct military operations. It urges civilians in Iran to immediately avoid all port facilities where Iranian naval forces are operating. Iranian dockworkers, administrative personnel, and commercial vessel crews, CENTCOM says, should avoid Iranian naval vessels and military equipment. The U.S. yesterday reported it was increasing its attacks on smaller Iranian vessels capable of laying mines in the Straits of Hormuz.
U.S. Warns of Impending Strikes on Iran's Seaports
The waterfront at Bandar Abbas, Iran's main container port (file image)
On Wednesday, U.S. Central Command warned civilian personnel to stay clear of Iran's commercial seaports along the Strait of Hormuz, indicating the likely onset of a bombing campaign. CENTCOM accused Iranian forces of using the ports as staging grounds for Iran's limited, asymmetric naval operations.
"CENTCOM urges civilians in Iran to immediately avoid all port facilities where Iranian naval forces are operating. Iranian dockworkers, administrative personnel, and commercial vessel crews should avoid Iranian naval vessels and military equipment," the command warned. "Although the U.S. military also cannot guarantee civilian safety in or near facilities used by the Iranian regime for military purposes, American forces will continue taking every feasible precaution to minimize harm to civilians."
The most prominent port in the Strait of Hormuz area, Bandar Abbas, is the principal container and breakbulk port for Iranian consumers. As they are strategic infrastructure, major seaports are often used for dual civilian and military purposes, and Bandar Abbas is no exception: it has been used before for receiving consignments of rocket fuel ingredients from China, among other military cargoes. As a practical matter, civilian ports are commonly targeted in the course of prolonged hostilities, as seen in recent events in Yemen, Ukraine and Russia.
Iran has likewise conducted its share of strikes on port infrastructure in neighboring nations. On Wednesday, imagery of burning fuel tanks at the port of Salalah, Oman began circulating on social media, indicating Iran's willingness to strike even neutral nations that have facilitated peace negotiations. The port of Fujairah has also reportedly limited its bunker barge loading operations after damage from Iranian strikes; Fujairah is one of the world's leading bunker ports, alongside Singapore and Rotterdam.
Report: Saudi Aramco Shuts Down Two Supergiant Offshore Oil Fields
Infrastructure at the Safaniya field (Saudi Aramco)
Saudi Arabia has joined Kuwait and Iraq in beginning the process of drawing down oil production, a response to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a shortage of storage options. The Wall Street Journal has confirmed that Saudi Aramco has shut down the Safaniya and Zuluf fields, taking two million barrels per day of production offline.
Safaniya is the world's largest offshore oil field, containing more than 30 billion barrels of oil in proven reserves, and Saudi Aramco has invested heavily in a program to modernize its extraction infrastructure to sustain production at levels exceeding one million barrels per day. Zuluf is another supergiant estimated at about 30 billion barrels, and has a nameplate production capacity in excess of one million bpd.
Iraq has already shut in enough production to match the sudden stoppage in exports caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and is producing just enough to satisfy domestic demand. Kuwait has signaled that it is slowing production as storage fills up, but it is hoping to preserve the ability to restart quickly once the transport situation normalizes.
Saudi Arabia has more extensive tank storage options than its neighbors, and while it is normally dependent on Hormuz shipping for exports, it has another alternative. The Saudis operate a 750-mile pipeline connection from Gulf oil fields to a terminal at Yanbu, on the Red Sea. This circumvents the risks at Hormuz, though the Red Sea has security challenges of its own. The Saudi East-West pipeline can handle 7 million barrels per day and the Yanbu terminal can load up to 4.5 million barrels, according to Kpler - nearly half of all Saudi production, but not all of it.
The ongoing conflict has had other effects on offshore operations. Contractor Borr Drilling has suspended operations on three of its jackup rigs in the Arabian Gulf amidst ongoing hostilities, the company said.
Two rigs in Qatari waters and another rig off the UAE have been downmanned to reduce risk, the company said. The action follows an unspecified incident aboard a customer-owned platform, which prompted Borr to shut down and evacuate the rig Arabia III.
All of the rigs remain under contract and covered by insurance, the firm said.
British opposition to US military action in Iran grows, new YouGov poll finds
Opposition to the US-Israeli strikes on Iran has risen by 10 points
British opposition to the US military action in Iran is rising, according to new YouGov polling.
Polling carried out on 9 March found that 59% of Brits now oppose or strongly oppose the US-Israeli strikes on Iran.
This marks a 10-point increase from last week, when 49% of Britons said they opposed US military action against Iran.
On the tenth day of military action, support for the strikes on Iran has also fallen by three points, from 28% to 25% since 2 March.
Support for the US attacks is highest among Reform voters, with 57% saying they somewhat or strongly support the war.
Opposition to the war is strongest among Green, Labour and Lib Dem voters. The poll revealed that 87% of Green voters somewhat or strongly oppose the war, while 81% of Lib Dems and 76% of Labour voters are against it.
As opposition to the attacks on Iran grows, senior Reform figures appear divided on the issue, though Nigel Farage and Richard Tice have expressed support for the strikes.
Robert Jenrick MP has said that Reform would not send UK troops to join in the strikes, and that the party wants to “see the war come to an end as quickly as possible”.
By contrast, Farage said the UK “should do all we can” to help the Americans.
Asked if Reform would instruct the RAF to take part in bombing Iran, Tice said if Reform were in power “we would be helping the Americans and the Israelis in any way they saw appropriate”.
Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward Majority of Britons describe themselves as anti-Trump, poll finds
It is unsurprising that a majority of Brits describe themselves as anti-Trump given that he has repeatedly criticised the UK.
A clear majority of Britons describe themselves as anti-Trump, a new poll has found, as the U.S. President continues to criticise the UK for not following his chaotic policies.
According to the poll, carried out by YouGov, 67% of Britons describe themselves as anti-Trump, with Reform UK voters the only group more likely to be pro-Trump than anti.
Trump has recently launched strikes against Iran which has caused regional turmoil, a decision that Prime Minister Keir Starmer has distanced himself from, saying UK troops would not be involved unless there was a clear legal basis.
A recent poll also found that 49% of Britons are opposed to US military action against Iran, compared to 28% who support the attacks.
It is unsurprising that a majority of Brits describe themselves as anti-Trump given that he has repeatedly criticised the UK.
Last year, Trump claimed that NATO troops, which included British soldiers, ‘stayed a little back, a little off the front lines’ in Afghanistan.
According to official UK figures, 405 of the 457 British casualties who died in Afghanistan were killed in hostile military action. Trump’s comments led to widespread condemnation.
Labour MPs criticise Tony Blair for backing Trump over Keir Starmer on US-Iran war
“A prolonged period of silence would be most welcome...
A number of Labour MPs have criticised former Prime Minister Tony Blair after he chose to back Donald Trump over Keir Starmer on the US-Israel war on Iran.
While the US-Israel strikes on Iran enter their 10th day, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has differed from U.S. President Donald Trump on his approach to the war, saying that UK troops would not be joining unless there was a lawful basis. He also told the Commons in a statement that he did not ‘believe in regime change from the skies’.
However, Former PM Sir Tony, who took the UK into the Iraq war in 2003 at the US’s urging, reportedly told a private event: “I think we should have backed America from the very beginning.”
He went on to say: “If they are your ally and an indispensable cornerstone for your security… you had better show up when they want you to.”
However, his critics accused him of failing to learn the lessons of the Iraq war.
Labour MP Jon Trickett is quoted in the Mirror as saying of Sir Tony: “A prolonged period of silence would be most welcome, particularly on matters to do with war and peace in the Middle East, where his record is disastrous.”
Fellow Labour MP Clive Lewis said: “This is the Prime Minister who led Britain into an illegal war whose consequences are still unfolding today. He’s the last person the current prime minister should be turning to for advice.”
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has rejected Tony Blair’s assertion that the UK should have supported Donald Trump’s initial airstrikes on Iran, saying Britain had to “learn the lessons” of mistakes made in Iraq.
Asked about Blair’s comments, Cooper told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips on Sky News: “I just disagree.”
The foreign secretary added: “There are some people in politics who think that we should always agree with the US whatever. There are other people in politics who think we should never take action with the US again whatever the circumstances. I don’t think either of those positions is in the UK national interest, and it is the responsibility for Keir Starmer to act in the UK’s national interest for British citizens.”
Asked if she was calling Blair “a poodle”, she said: “I think the point is to make sure that, actually, we learn the lessons from some of the things that went wrong in Iraq, and I think that is exactly what Keir Starmer has done.”
Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward
Calls grow for King Charles’ ‘unthinkable’ Donald Trump visit to be cancelled
9 March, 2026 Left Foot Forward The leader of the Lib Dems has said the King’s state visit should be cancelled given Trump’s illegal war on Iran
The Lib Dem leader has said Keir Starmer should urge King Charles to call off his visit to see the US President.
The King is due to visit the US next month to commemorate 250 years since the US declaration of independence from Britain was signed.
Ed Davey has called for the visit to be cancelled amid Donald Trump’s illegal war against Iran.
The Lib Dem leader also criticised Trump for repeatedly insulting Keir Starmer and the UK.
Trump said that Starmer had taken “far too long” to agree to allow the US to use UK military bases to carry out attacks on Iran.
He also said Starmer was “not Winston Churchill” in a jibe at his decision to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and lease back the US-UK military base on Diego Garcia.
Davey said: “Keir Starmer should advise the King that the state visit to the US scheduled for April should be called off.
“At a time when Trump has launched an illegal war that is devastating the Middle East and pushing up energy bills for British families, it’s clear this visit should not go ahead.
“A state visit from our King would be seen as yet another huge diplomatic coup for President Trump, so it should not be given to someone who repeatedly insults and damages our country.”
Backbench Labour MPs have also joined calls to cancel the visit, with one MP telling the Times: “It would be good to cancel and send a message.”
Green Party deputy leader Rachel Millward said: “Trump’s USA has become a rogue state, waging illegal wars abroad and unleashing terror on its streets through Trump’s ICE thugs.
“It is unthinkable that the King should grace Trump with a visit at this point.”
The Housing, Communities and Local Government secretary, Steve Reed, rejected Davey’s suggestion. He said: “I don’t think it’s for Ed Davey to decide what the King should or shouldn’t be doing, and I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on his arrangements either.”
Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
‘My Memory Is Being Demolished’: US-Israeli Bombings Damage Protected World Heritage Sites in Iran
“War fans say that whatever gets destroyed, someone will build a better one later,” said one Iranian scholar. “Fine, go ahead and build a new Golestan Palace, a new Chehel Sotun, and a new Taq-e Bostan too.”
This photo taken on March 3, 2026 shows a view of the damaged Golestan Palace in Tehran, Iran. The Golestan Palace, a UNESCO World Heritage site, was partially damaged in air raids during US and Israeli strikes on Iran. (Photo by Xinhua via Getty Images)
In addition to killing and injuring thousands of Iranians, the US-Israeli war in Iran is bringing ruin upon some of the oldest and most cherished historical landmarks in the world.
Several centuries-old locations, designated as World Heritage sites by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), have suffered damage from bombings since the US and Israel launched the war on February 28. As UNESCO noted last week, these sites are protected under multiple statutes in international law.
“Iran is home to one of the richest concentrations of historical sites on Earth, representing civilizations that stretch from the Elamites and Achaemenid Persians to Islamic dynasties and modern Iran,” wrote Haley Fuller for Military.com on Wednesday.
“Iran contains dozens of sites recognized by the international community as having ‘outstanding universal value,’” she said. “The country currently has nearly 30 locations listed as UNESCO World Heritage sites, including ancient cities, monumental architecture, and archaeological landscapes spanning thousands of years.”
UNESCO said that it has communicated the coordinates of protected sites to all parties in the conflict, including Israel. Iranian authorities, meanwhile, had already begun marking important historical sites with the internationally recognized Blue Shield symbol, established in the 1954 Hague Convention to designate protected areas. But several have still been attacked.
According to multiple local reports, as well as photos and videos posted to social media, an Israeli airstrike on Monday shattered windows, scattered debris, and broke doors at the Chehel Sotoun Palace and other sites within the 17th-century Naqsh-e-Jahan Square in the city of Isfahan.
The city was the capital of Persia under the Safavid dynasty from 1501-1736, and it boasts some of the country’s most significant works of architecture and art. The Israeli military was reportedly targeting the governor’s building, which sits near the square.
“Chehel Sotoun is renowned for its extensive frescoes depicting historical battles, royal receptions, and scenes from Persian mythology, which are among the largest, most unique examples of Persianate painting,” wrote Sarvy Geranpayeh in a report for The Art Newspaper.
While most of the site’s interior paintings survived the attack, provincial officials said the site’s famous mirror-work decorations were damaged, and a 17th-century fresco depicting the Iranian Safavid ruler Shah Tahmasp and the Indian Mughal Humayun sustained a large crack.
Several other buildings in the square also took damage, Geranpayeh reported: Authorities reported that the 17th-century Ali Qapu Palace had its doors and windows shattered, while the 17th-century Jame Abbasi Mosque, also known as Shah Mosque, sustained damage to sections of its iconic turquoise and calligraphic tiles...
Several other sites within the Safavid-era Dawlatkhaneh complex also reportedly suffered damage. These include the 17th-century Rakeb-Khaneh pavillion (House of the Jockey), originally built to store the equestrian equipment and harnesses of the royal stables, Ashraf Hall, a highly decorative residential structure associated with the Safavid court, and the nearby 15th-century Teymouri Hall, a Timurid-era building later converted into the Natural History Museum.
A previous attack on March 1, the second day of the war, caused damage to the only designated UNESCO World Heritage site in Tehran, the Golestan Palace, which is more than 400 years old.
Geranpayeh reported that the building was left “strewn with debris, its windows blown out and its distinctive mirror and glasswork damaged.”
Some of the architecture that has come under attack is even older. On March 8, Israeli strikes on Khorramabad reportedly damaged the structures surrounding the Falak-ol-Aflak Castle, which is more than 1,800 years old, dating back to the Sassanid Empire in the 3rd century.
The US Committee of the Blue Shield, an international organization tasked with protecting heritage sites in times of war and crisis, said it was “disturbed” by the United States’ expressions of disregard for the laws of war.
The committee drew attention to comments made by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week that “America, regardless of what so-called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history... All on our terms with maximum authority. No stupid rules of engagement.”
According to the Iranian Red Crescent Society, more than 19,000 civilian buildings have been damaged since the war began less than two weeks ago, including hospitals, residential buildings, and schools.
One attack, reportedly by the US, on a girls’ school in Minab on the first day of the war, resulted in the slaughter of around 175 people, mostly children ages 7-12. According to the World Health Organization more than 1,300 people have been killed and 9,000 injured in total since February 28.
“The failure to observe international humanitarian law, including numerous international conventions to which the US is a state party, as well as customary international law, can lead to the commission of war crimes,” the US Blue Shield Committee said. It added that this disregard extends to cultural sites as well.
“The destruction of cultural heritage is irreversible. It erases identity, history, and the shared memory of civilizations,” the committee said. “No military or political objective justifies the willful or negligent destruction of humanity’s common inheritance. Such destruction is also one of the actions that can make returning to a state of peace more difficult.”
According to a New York Timesreport on Wednesday, the destruction of culturally important sites has only heightened the anger Iranians feel as their country has fallen under attack.
“War fans say that whatever gets destroyed, someone will build a better one later,” Mojtaba Najafi, a prominent Iranian scholar and researcher, said in a post to social media.
“Fine, go ahead and build a new Golestan Palace, a new Chehel Sotun, and a new Taq-e Bostan too,” he continued, referring to another site which came under threat from US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025.
“For me, ancient monuments are as important as human lives, because they connect me to my past,” Najafi said. “And their destruction means my memory is being demolished.”
Spain Stands Up: Toward the Internationalization of ‘No a la Guerra’
President Sánchez’s voice has been the bravest in Europe. His peace communication and action have the potential to disarm the authoritarian brutality of war as events in Iran and the Middle East grip the hearts and minds of the peoples of the world.
A “No a la Guerra” placard hangs in Puerta del Sol, Madrid, Spain. (Photo by Greenpeace)
In a move that has sent shockwaves from Washington to Tel Aviv, passing through Berlin and Ankara, Spanish President Pedro Sánchez has positioned Spain as the primary European holdout against the escalating military conflict in Iran. Invoking the ghost of protests against the 2003 Iraq War, Sánchez’s government has blocked the United States from using Spanish military bases at Rota and Morón de la Frontera to bomb Iran—a decision that has triggered threats of a trade embargo from US President Donald Trump.
Sánchez has provided a three-fold argument against the war: that it is contrary to international law, unethical, and catastrophic for the world. He is simultaneously presenting himself as a courageous politician whose principles transcend any fear of US retaliation and a pragmatist who wishes to avoid the negative consequences of the war, from economic disaster to Islamist terrorism.
No a la Guerra captures this narrative in a way that resonates strongly not only in the minds of Spaniards but across the world. Sánchez has satisfied an international demand to speak out against Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and put peace on the agenda. His government has broken a spiral of silence. Can it stir support to stop the war? The Domestic Front
In opposing the Iranian war, the Spanish government is part of a wider movement that can unsettle the sense of helplessness that often grips Europe during Middle East conflicts.
Spain’s government must navigate the tension of geopolitical power relations while avoiding any mismatch between its discourse and practice, per the slaughter in Gaza. Some on the left also maintain that it is impossible to oppose the war effectively without sanctioning Israel and leaving NATO.
The right labels Sánchez as posturing ahead of a potential snap election. Yet the PP leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo has offered babbling, erratic responses that are themselves framed almost entirely through the lens of domestic partisan politics.
Feijóo also argues that Sánchez has abandoned Spain’s allies, jeopardizing the national interest. But the PP’s alignment with pro-war interests represents a regression to an outdated colonialist mindset of total servility. Much like during Aznar’s era, the PP is willing to kneel to US interests, sacrificing national sovereignty to serve as a submissive junior partner in a foreign military campaign. Sanchez’s performance is approved by 42% of the population; 19% support the opposition’s reaction.
The country’s main business association has expressed deep concern about the possibility of the US severing trade relations with Spain and placed responsibility on the Spanish government, urging it to ameliorate the situation. The International Chessboard
The European Commission, Italy, France, Portugal, Austria, Ireland, Malta, Turkey, and China have expressed solidarity with Spain in the face of Trump’s threats. However, France and Portugal, together with Germany, the UK, Greece, and Australia have adopted bellicose positions, and Canada is wavering. The President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen has justified the attack on Iran and stated that the European Union must be prepared to “project power” as it can no longer rely on the “rules-based” system to protect the continent’s interests, while the President of the European Council Antonio Costa and the Vice-President of the European Commission Teresa Ribera have spoken up for international law.
Within Latin America, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Chile have advocated for adherence to international law and diplomatic resolution; conversely, Argentina has signaled explicit support for the US and Israeli governments.
Israel accuses Spain of failing to fulfill its obligations per NATO, while Trump, as ever the class bully, threatens to punish it. While remaining submissive to Trump, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has reminded him that he cannot unilaterally block trade with Spain because it shares most-favored nation status with all European Union members. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte justifies the offensive against Iran at the same time as he defends Spain’s contribution to the organization.
Positions may change as the war evolves. Sánchez needs to go further and mobilize international opposition to the war. He must show it is possible and beneficial (including in electoral terms) to stand up to bullying. That will mean developing new alliances and favoring European strategic autonomy and sovereignty. Should the war go badly for US interests, Sánchez’s blend of ethical resistance and enlightened self-interest could encourage other leaders to join him.
For now, Spain is holding up a mirror to other European countries, challenging them to reflect on their diminished sovereignty. Merz looks weak by contrast when he claims that international law does not apply to Iran.
The US National Security Strategy frames the EU as an enemy to be destroyed, while DC and techno-authoritarians promote the far right. Positive coverage of the Spanish government’s stand in the international press can encourage European governments and citizens to confront Trump and Netanyahu. Significant majorities in Spain, Germany, Italy, and Britain oppose military intervention. It is about time democratic leaders understand the US not as an ally but an irresponsible actor seeking to weaponize Europe in its own interest. Iran’s democratic opposition needs peaceful conditions, as opposed to bombs. And the violence that the regime uses to deter dissent and seek internal cohesion against the external enemy. The country’s democratization must be accompanied by democratization and pacification across the globe, especially the United States.
A "No a la Guerra" placard is carried during a Women's Day demonstration in Madrid, Spain. (Photo by Joan Pedro-Carañana)
Building a New Spirit of the Times: Will the People Rise for Peace?
In opposing the Iranian war, the Spanish government is part of a wider movement that can unsettle the sense of helplessness that often grips Europe during Middle East conflicts. Per 2003’s invasion of Iraq, grassroots popular culture is playing a key role in expressing peaceful solidarity.
A Turkish news anchor moved audiences by thanking Spain—in Spanish—for being “on the right side of history” and “representing the common consciousness of humanity,” while a video of Turkish football fans passionately singing the pasodoble España Cañà has become viral; a surreal display of cultural support. Other viral videos feature a skilled Palestinian skater holding a Spanish flag and a Japanese influencer advocating for Spanish products in response to Trump’s threat.
Peace has a chance should the US people rise decidedly against the war. Spain has paved the way for citizens around the world.
Peace and democracy require symbolic triumphs that bring binding affects to the people and joy to the collective political body. Believing that “yes, we can” is a necessary step to the realization of objectives. As Susan Sarandon said in cinema’s recent Goya Awards, “Silence is very dangerous.” When Sánchez broke the silence of world leaders, the possibility of resistance turning viral emerged: “In a place where you feel repression and censorship, to see Spain come forward with such a strong voice and moral clarity is so important to us, the United States; it makes you feel less alone and that there is hope.” Peace Needs US Citizens
The US and Israel seem to be losing the battle of international public opinion, but that’s not enough: Authoritarian leaders such as Trump and Netanyahu act through force more than consensus in the international arena. Nevertheless, they rely on their own voters. Although 93% of Israeli Jews and 26% of Israeli Arabs support the war, as of early March, 44% of US citizens support the war and 56% oppose it. Despite Trump’s electoral promise of “no war,” only 15% of his supporters oppose the attacks on Iran, but support for Trump and the war are based on a cult of personality and spectacular demonstrations of force and victory in short wars with few national casualties. Some notable isolationist and antisemitic conservatives have already broken with him over Iran.
Although the figures vary depending on the survey, support for the strikes is far lower than that at the beginnings of previous wars. As ever, support for military action may wane as the economic and human costs of war increase. International-relations mavens are unified in their skepticism. While current opposition remains insufficient to halt the conflict, it highlights a decline in President Trump’s support that could prove decisive in the November midterm elections. However, given the catastrophic consequences of the war, an electoral shift may come too late. Because of the illegal nature of the strikes and the bypassing of congressional approval, it may be time to pursue impeachment based on executive overreach and the violation of international law, albeit with no prospect of conviction.
The role of peace communication is to engage with Trump’s supporters: listening to them, empathizing where possible, sharing information, and showing how they are negatively affected by the war.
Peace has a chance should the US people rise decidedly against the war. Spain has paved the way for citizens around the world. But peace communication should not merely be refusal; it should mobilize diplomacy, internationalism, and interculturality. Peace communication must encourage others to agree, not push them away, and do so in the name of mutual transformation. That depends on a shared will, creativity, and care for humanity.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Joan Pedro-Caranana Joan Pedro-Caranana is in the Department of Journalism and New Media of the Complutense University of Madrid. He has a European doctorate in Communication, Social Change and Development, and has been active in a variety of social movements. His interest lies in the role of communication, education and culture in the transformation of societies. Full Bio >
Toby Miller Toby Miller is a distinguished professor at the Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey, Guadalajara campus. Full Bio >
Spain Withdraws Ambassador to Israel Over Unprovoked War on Iran and Gaza Assault
“Every country with a single ounce of decency should do the same,” said one academic.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez greets the Grand Duke Guillaume of Luxembourg at Moncloa Palace on March 5, 2026 in Madrid, Spain. (Photo by Paolo Blocco/Getty Images)
Spain has also been outspoken in its condemnation of Israel’s US-backed war on Gaza, which began in October 2023 in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack.
Last September, the prime minister announced an arms embargo on Israel, noting that its attacks on Gaza—which have now killed more than 75,000 Palestinians, according to peer-reviewed studies—has been described as a “genocide” by experts, including the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories.
Sánchez also announced Spain would formally recognize Palestinian statehood in May 2024, angering Israel and prompting the country to recall its ambassador to Spain.
Last week, Sánchez gave a 10-minute address saying he was not intimidated by President Donald Trump’s threat to impose a trade embargo on Spain in retaliation for its refusal to allow the US and Israel use its military bases. He reiterated that Spain’s view on Iran is, “No to war.”
“Spain stands with the founding principles of the European Union. It stands with the charter of the United Nations. It stands with international law and therefore with peace and peaceful coexistence between countries,” said the prime minister.
In an interview with El Diario on Tuesday, Sánchez called on other European countries to “raise the rules-based international order and the defense of renewed multilateralism.”
The war against Iran “has been a war unilaterally driven by two nations,” he said. “We are consistent with the foreign policy we have maintained during these almost eight years of government. We will not resolve the situation of instability in the Middle East with such flagrant illegality.”
Gunfire at US consulate in Toronto a ‘national security incident’: police
Toronto police investigated after shots were fired at the US consulate in what they called a 'national security incident' - Copyright AFP Cole BURSTON
Two men fired multiple shots at the US consulate in Toronto early Tuesday in what police described as a “national security incident,” prompting beefed-up protection for US and Israeli diplomatic buildings in the city.
The individuals approached the consulate in downtown Toronto at around 4:30 am (0830 GMT), exited a white SUV and fired several rounds from a handgun at the consulate, Toronto police deputy chief Frank Barredo told reporters.
There were people inside at the time, but “this building is highly secure, highly fortified, and there were no injuries,” Barredo said.
Chief Superintendent Chris Leather from Canada’s federal police said the shooting was “definitely a national security incident because we had the US consulate…struck by gunfire.”
“Whether it’s a terrorist (event), that will be subject to the investigation,” said Leather, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Leather also told reporters that security protocols are being enhanced at US and Israeli diplomatic buildings in Toronto and in the Canadian capital Ottawa.
“I think it’s fairly obvious based on the incidents in Toronto and elsewhere that these consulates deserve a heightened amount of vigilance and security at this time,” Leather said.
There were protests outside the consulate last weekend to denounce the Middle East war triggered by US and Israeli strikes on Iran.
Three Toronto‑area synagogues have also been hit by gunfire in recent days, but no injuries have been reported.
Asked about a possible link between the synagogue shootings and gunfire at the US consulate, Barredo said it was “too early” to establish a link.
But, he added, “we do not look at (the incidents) in isolation. We look at them collectively.”
Leather said the RCMP was working with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation on the consulate shooting, as well as Canada’s foreign intelligence agency, CSIS.
The US consulate is located on Toronto’s University Avenue, a major north‑south road that includes several hospitals and leads toward the provincial legislature.
Journalists face restrictions, detention covering Mideast war
Some of the tightest restrictions are in Iran and Israel
- Copyright AFP/File YURIY DYACHYSHYN
Eric WISHART, with AFP's Middle East bureaus
Journalists covering the war in the Middle East are facing increasing restrictions and censorship imposed by governments and armed groups, with reporters being stopped and questioned or even detained, a survey of AFP bureau chiefs from the region showed.
Some of the tightest restrictions are in Iran and Israel, although Gulf monarchies, targets of unprecedented drone and missile attacks from Iran, have also imposed tighter controls.
Governments seem particularly concerned about images that disclose the location of missile and drone strikes, or that show projectiles being intercepted.
Obtaining independent information outside of official channels is particularly difficult in Iran, where media access to areas outside the capital Tehran is limited or non-existent.
AFP, one of the few international news outlets with a Tehran bureau, has been unable to visit the scene of the strike on a school in the southern town of Minab, where Iranian authorities say more than 150 people, many of them children, were killed.
With the Iranian internet barely functioning and security extremely tight, there is relatively little independent user generated content being posted from within Iran. This contrasts with the start of the war in Ukraine when journalists were allowed to travel freely and citizens posted images of Russian strikes.
– Tightly regulated –
To get an independent picture of what is happening outside of Tehran, AFP is relying heavily on interviews with people who have fled the country, including those who have crossed Iran’s borders into neighbouring countries, and on information provided by members of the Iranian diaspora with contacts inside the country.
With the phones barely functioning in Iran, a dedicated team based at AFP’s Paris headquarters has been using their contacts to speak to Iranians who have left the country and scour social media.
It is difficult for staff from the agency’s Tehran bureau to work freely on the ground, although the authorities are organising media visits to civilian sites that have been targeted, including homes, schools, sports stadiums and hospitals.
The Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, known as Ershad, regulates the press and usually must give its approval before coverage.
However, being given permission to work outside has not prevented journalists from being stopped and questioned by security forces, with the risk of detention.
Iranian state media is focusing on reporting civilian casualties and damage to civilian targets. It does not give military losses, although it does announce the launch of missiles and drones towards Israel and other targets in the region.
AFP’s Middle East photo chief Jewel Samad said Iran’s intelligence ministry warned: “If someone takes photos of sensitive places or damaged buildings and areas or records the locations of centres with a GPS device or mobile phone and marks the places, they could be an agent of the American-Zionist enemy.” It called on people to inform the authorities if they saw anyone doing that.
AFP’s Tehran team is managing to take images of strikes, mainly billowing smoke, from a distance. The bombing has also taken a physical and mental toll on journalists in Iran, whose sleep is constantly interrupted by nighttime air strikes.
– Forbidden –
Iran’s foe Israel has imposed strict military censorship of sensitive army operations for decades, but has tightened its restrictions as it faces strikes from Iran and the Iranian-backed Shia militia Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The army has banned live broadcasts of the Israeli skyline when alarms have been sounded to warn of incoming missiles or drones.
Images of air defences intercepting incoming missiles had been a major part of the coverage at the start of the war, and was a feature in the coverage of the June 2025 war between Israel and Iran.
However, this is now forbidden.
The army has also banned filming impacts at or near security sites, although it does allow coverage of civilian damage as long as exact locations are withheld.
In guidelines sent to media outlets in Israel, the army’s chief censor Brigadier General Netanel Kula listed a range of subjects and topics that could not be published without official clearance.
“Its primary purpose is to prevent assistance to the enemy during wartime, which constitutes a tangible threat to state security,” he said.
The guidelines bar journalists from disclosing information about military planning and preparations, air defences, and impact sites and locations.
– Lebanon and the Gulf –
In Israel’s northern neighbour Lebanon, the scene of heavy Israeli strikes in retaliation for Hezbollah missile and drone attacks, journalists are facing restrictions imposed by the pro-Iranian militia.
Reporters are forbidden by Hezbollah from freely accessing the group’s stronghold in Beirut’s southern suburbs, although the organisation does organise press trips.
Faced with unprecedented attacks from Iran, the Gulf monarchies have imposed tight restrictions on journalists.
“The operating environment for journalists is getting much harder in the Gulf generally,” said Talek Harris, AFP’s Dubai-based bureau chief for the Gulf and Yemen.
In Qatar, the interior ministry announced on Monday that more than 300 people had been arrested for sharing images and misleading information about Iranian attacks.
Those arrested, of various nationalities, “filmed and circulated video clips and published misleading information and rumours that could stir public opinion”, the ministry said.
The UAE attorney general Hamad Saif Al Shamsi has warned against photographing, publishing or circulating images that show damage where projectiles or shrapnel has fallen.
“Disseminating such materials or inaccurate information can incite public panic and create a false impression of the country’s actual situation,” Shamsi said.
The UAE authorities were also concerned about fake and AI-generated images being posted online, and Shamsi warned that those who do this will face being treated “without leniency”.
In Saudi Arabia, filming of energy installations and diplomatic areas — which have borne the brunt of Iranian attacks — was already highly restricted during normal times, with the war adding further pressure.
Saudi authorities regularly refuse to speak on the record outside of official statements, while the Royal Court’s media service has pressured reporters to disclose the identities of their anonymous sources.
Meanwhile, the Kuwaiti interior ministry said it had arrested two people who shared video clips that “mocked” the army, and a third person who used pictures of “banned terrorist organisations’ leaders on his profile”.
Bahrain’s interior ministry announced that four people had been arrested for filming and sharing footage of Iranian attacks and allegedly spreading false information, saying their actions amounted to “treason”.
– Threat of prosecution –
Jordan’s Media Commission has banned the publication of any videos or information related to the kingdom’s defence operations, warning that violators will face criminal prosecution.
In Iraq, AFP’s Baghdad bureau chief Roba El Husseini said authorities were only giving limited information about the conflict. Journalists are generally barred from filming around Baghdad International Airport and are not allowed access to border crossings to Iran.
In the Kurdish-controlled north of the country, authorities have said journalists cannot publish live videos of incoming missiles or rockets, reveal the time and location of an attack, or give details of any damage.
They must not shoot images around sensitive locations such as military and security sites, government buildings or diplomatic missions.
Journalists are also warned to be careful about sharing videos uploaded by citizens, as they might disclose sensitive positions or infrastructure.
On the US side, and unlike the 2003 Gulf War, the Pentagon has not invited international media such as AFP to join military embeds.
US and international news outlets including AFP, AP, Fox News and the New York Times were stripped of their Pentagon credentials late last year when they declined to sign new media rules.
The current crisis differs considerably from the 1973 oil shock, not least because most countries have emergency stocks - Copyright AFP/File Alain JOCARD
Pol-Malo LE BRIS
Ten days after the first American and Israeli strikes against Iran, oil prices have cooled slightly after soaring above $100 a barrel.
Even if they risk rocketing once more because of ongoing military action, the situation remains very different compared with the oil shock of 1973. AFP looks at why:
– Blockade versus embargo –
The current crisis’ mechanics differ radically from those of 1973. Back then, the shock was political — a deliberate embargo by OPEC’s Arab member countries against pro-Israeli Western nations during the Yom Kippur War.
In 2026, the shock is logistical — a military blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, a key transit point through which 20 percent of global production usually passes.
In the current situation, the resource is not being refused by producers, rather it is physically blocked.
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait have the capacity to open the floodgates to stabilise the market but they are hampered by the fact that “they are all dependent on Hormuz”, Francis Perrin, an energy expert at French think tank IRIS, told AFP.
This bottleneck is the result of a lack of sufficient alternative routes to export Middle Eastern crude.
These Gulf giants have already begun reducing their production owing to a lack of local storage capacity, noted Jorge Leon, an analyst at Rystad Energy.
“The current crisis could potentially become a major energy crisis if this is sustained over time,” he told AFP.
It is this difference in nature — a physical barrier rather than a deliberate diplomatic rupture — that makes a price explosion similar to that of 1973, when prices quadrupled in three months, virtually impossible according to analysts.
– Pressure of US elections –
Iran’s threat to block Middle East exports of oil to US and Israeli allies as long as the war continues aims to keep energy prices high, heaping pressure on the United States ahead of its midterm elections in November.
President Donald Trump will want to avoid at all costs a prolonged surge in oil prices, which would become his political Achilles’ heel.
On Monday, Trump contained price increases by asserting that the war could end sooner than expected.
He said he would also waive some sanctions on Russia, having allowed India to temporarily import Russian oil.
– Strategic reserves –
Unlike the first oil shock, when Western countries were caught off guard, OECD members can now rely on massive strategic reserves, equivalent to three months of imports.
This safety net is managed by the International Energy Agency, an institution created in the aftermath of the 1973 crisis to address this type of emergency.
To compensate for the Iranian blockade, the IEA could soon inject some of these reserves into the market to curb price speculation and fill the supply gap.
It is an essential safety valve that remains “effective only if the conflict doesn’t last too long”, cautioned Perrin.
– Affect on green transition –
The balance of power has also radically changed. While OPEC took advantage of the chaos in 1973 to impose record prices, exporting countries today fear that fresh all-time peaks could form the strongest argument for a transition to green energy.
The challenge is all the more complex because the world remains hooked on oil.
“We are still struggling to replace the king that is oil,” said Perrin, recalling its indispensable role in transportation and petrochemicals.
While crude oil’s share of the global energy mix has decreased, overall consumption is reaching record highs.
“If the conflict drags on for a few more weeks, prices could easily climb to $140,” predicted Leon, weakening the global economy.
US President Donald Trump has given shifting timelines for the Iran war - Copyright AFP SAUL LOEB
Danny KEMP
US President Donald Trump has built a potential off-ramp by suggesting the Iran war could end soon, but the world is still guessing about whether he will take it — and whether Tehran will let him.
With surging oil prices threatening the global economy and his political fortunes at home, Trump’s tone appeared to shift abruptly on Monday as he called the war “very complete” and a “short-term excursion.”
But the 79-year-old commander-in-chief continued to send mixed messages about when the war could end — and what its goals are — leaving it far from clear what he will ultimately settle for.
For Trump, that calculation will almost certainly involve November’s US midterm elections, with gas prices likely to fuel voter anger at his Republican Party over the cost of living.
Polls so far show historically low support among Americans for the war.
“I think he’s going to keep going until his advisers tell him that the economic pain is going to risk the midterms,” Colin Clarke, executive director of the Soufan Center in New York, told AFP.
“He’s going to make a political decision about a military operation.”
For some observers, Trump’s comments on a short Iran war timeline was evidence of what traders have dubbed the TACO phenomenon — “Trump Always Chickens Out.”
“What they did communicate clearly, to the delight of markets, was that Trump is looking for an exit,” wrote Robert Armstrong, the Financial Times journalist who first coined the term TACO.
In the opening days of the US-Israeli strikes, Trump suggested the war could last four or five weeks, but markets surged at his hints on Monday that it could be shorter.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday that Trump, and Trump alone, would determine the timeline. “It’s not for me to posit whether it’s the beginning, the middle or the end. That’s his,” said the former Fox News host.
Clarke said he believed Trump would “go hard for the next two weeks tops, then things are so messy he’s going to declare victory.”
– ‘Wounded animal’ –
Victory will then be in the eye of the beholder.
Both Trump and his administration have publicly given a panoply of shifting goals for the war, ranging from seeking regime change in all but name, to securing the flow of Gulf oil.
But on paper it has listed some core military objectives — ensuring Iran has no nuclear weapon, eliminating its ballistic missiles and its navy, and curbing its regional proxies — that could be easier for Trump to sign off on.
But Iran will likely see any such declaration as Trump blinking first.
Despite the significant damage from the US-Israeli air campaign, Tehran has stepped up its defiant tone since Trump’s remarks, vowing to block Gulf oil supplies and mocking the US leader’s claims to be in control of the timeline of the conflict.
“It is we who will determine the end of the war,” Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) said in a statement, while the Islamic republic’s security chief Ali Larijani warned Trump himself to be careful “not to be eliminated.”
Israel meanwhile has its own timeline, which Trump also has only limited control over. Differences have already emerged over both the long-term goals and Israel’s strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure.
And while Trump insists he must have a role in choosing Iran’s new leader, there is no sign yet of large-scale internal resistance to supreme leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, chosen at the weekend to replace his slain father.
If Mojtaba Khamenei and the regime survive, Operation Epic Fury would be “remembered as the Mother of All Lawnmowers” for having only skimmed the surface of things, Walter Russell Mead wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
Trump could then leave an even more dangerous situation, the Soufan Center’s Clarke said, with a “rump IRGC” going all out for a nuclear bomb, and the risk of various ethic groups launching a huge insurgency in the heart of the Middle East.
“If it’s Khamenei’s son or another hardliner, what’s different?” said Clarke. “It’s now like a wounded animal, which is arguably more dangerous.”
Critics have hit out at the rhetoric deployed by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (left), while Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine has adopted a more restrained tone - Copyright AFP/File Brendan SMIALOWSKI
Frankie TAGGART
When the top US general spoke Tuesday of his “respect” for Iranian fighters, the remark underscored a striking divide between the restrained language of the military brass and the swaggering rhetoric used by President Donald Trump and his administration.
From Trump joking that it was “more fun” to sink Iranian warships than capture them, to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth boasting that US forces were “punching them while they’re down,” critics say the administration’s messaging — reveling in the destructive power of the US military — has been jarring.
Professor Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force judge advocate who teaches the law of war, said the tone amounted to a “crass trivialization” of combat operations that suggested a “bloodthirsty” administration that “revels in the carnage.”
“This type of dangerous language is unusual for modern American leadership, and it demonstrates an extremely cavalier attitude toward the death and destruction that war entails,” she told AFP.
The rhetoric has also been amplified online, where official accounts circulate slick videos celebrating US strikes, blending real combat footage with imagery drawn from Hollywood films and video games.
It has marked a departure from the more restrained language traditionally used by American leaders during wartime, even when describing battlefield success.
– War as spectacle –
Hegseth has emerged as the administration’s most outspoken public voice since Washington joined Israel in launching the campaign against Iran.
At press briefings and public events, the former television host has adopted an at times boastful, mocking tone in describing the offensive.
“This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be,” Hegseth said last week.
In a television interview, he described the sinking of an Iranian vessel as “a quiet death,” while declaring that “the only ones that need to be worried right now are Iranians that think they’re going to live.”
He has also mocked allies uneasy about the widening conflict, referring to those who “wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force.”
Trump himself has used similarly combative language.
Recounting a discussion with a military official, the president said he had questioned why Iranian ships were sunk rather than seized.
“‘We could have used it. Why did we sink them?'” Trump said he had asked.
“He said, ‘It’s more fun to sink them.'”
Critics say repeating the remark publicly reinforced the impression of a White House treating war as spectacle.
– Military contrast –
Pushback intensified after the official White House account posted a video montage celebrating US strikes.
Cardinal Blase Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago, condemned the clip as turning real violence into entertainment.
“A real war with real death and real suffering being treated like it’s a video game — it’s sickening,” he said.
“Hundreds of people are dead, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, including scores of children who made the fatal mistake of going to school that day.”
Top Democrats have accused the administration of sending contradictory messages about the conflict and demanded Tuesday that Trump, Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio testify before Congress on the war’s objectives.
Military leaders, by contrast, have largely maintained a more traditional tone.
General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, drew attention when he was asked for his assessment of Iran’s military capability and noted the commitment of its fighters.
“I mean, I think they’re fighting, and I respect that,” he told reporters.
