Collateral Damage Comes Home: Lebanon, Palestine, Iran to Michigan

Saturday 21 March 2026, by David Finkel

The already unbearable horrors engulfing the peoples of the Middle East exploded into U.S. domestic news on March 12 with the attack in suburban Detroit at Temple Israel, the country’s largest Reform Jewish congregation.

By the grace and luck of the quick security-team response inside the building, and that the explosives reportedly in the attacker’s truck didn’t detonate, a potential mass casualty catastrophe was averted. The building filled with smoke, but evidently there was no explosion.

The temple was successfully evacuated, including some 140 in its early childhood center. A lockdown of all Jewish institutions in the vicinity was lifted a few hours later.

The suspect Ayman Ghazali, a 41-year-old restaurant worker in Dearborn Heights and U.S. naturalized citizen, was killed in the truck he drove into the temple and through a hallway. It’s been confirmed that four of his close family members, including a brother, niece and nephews, had been killed by an Israeli bombing strike in Lebanon.

There have been no reports that Ghazali had militant or terrorist connections. A trained operative or someone receiving expert assistance might have had “success” in a suicide-bombing attempt. In the unimaginable worst scenario, carnage at the synagogue could have approached the numbers of children at the Iranian school incinerated by the U.S. missile strike at the beginning of Donald Trump’s “little excursion.”

Pending any further information, then, we should assume that Ayman Ghazali was a human being driven to suicidal madness by Israel’s murder of his family in Lebanon. On our daily news feeds, it registers only marginally that over a thousand civilians in Iran have already been killed by U.S. and Israeli strikes; that Israeli military and settler killings of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank continue without letup; and that the Israeli assault on Lebanon has displaced seven hundred thousand people from the south, and killed at least hundreds in the bombing of Beirut.

The Israeli defense minister has openly announced what’s been evident from the beginning, that Israel’s intentions include occupying or even annexing a part of southern Lebanon. The stated military goal of annihilating Hezbollah “once and for all” cannot be achieved without effectively destroying Lebanon itself — even though much of its population despises Hezbollah for what it’s contributed to ruining the country.

The political culture in the United States is largely immunized from understanding what this mass destruction means and where it’s leading. The atmosphere is further poisoned with the incoherent ramblings of Donald Trump, the cynical proclamations of Marco “Israel made us strike first” Rubio, and the maniacal ravings of Pete Hegseth announcing “our victory” while the world economy threatens to burn down.

In the wake of the Temple Israel attack and the shooting the same day at Old Dominion University (by a formerly convicted “Islamic State” sympathizer), we should be fearful of further violence against synagogues and mosques, Jewish and Muslim institutions, and redoubled government terror on immigrant communities.

Combine this with the racist and increasingly open antisemitic Tucker Carlson-Candace Owens far right spreading the toxic mythology that “the United States has gone to war for Israel” or even “for the Jews” — as if Washington were the junior member in the partnership of U.S. imperialism with the Israeli state.

As Donald Trump’s catastrophic war escalates, even beyond its absurd initial calculations of “quick victory,” it’s up to the people of this country to rise against it. The alternative, not only globally but also as collateral damage comes back home, is a degenerative spiral that is nowhere near the bottom yet.

Against the Current !3 March

Attached documents

• collateral-damage-comes-home-lebanon-palestine-iran-to_a9461.pdf (PDF - 1.2 MiB)
  Extraction PDF [->article9461]

• David Finkel

  David Finkel is an editor of Against the Current, published by the US socialist organization Solidarity (www.solidarity-us.org)

 

The Age of Human Arrogance, Part V

The Earth Remembers What Humanity Refuses to Learn

by Sammy Attoh / March 21st, 2026

The earth has always been the first witness and the last survivor. Long before humanity learned to write its own history, the soil was already keeping record. Every drought, every flood, every migration, every extinction — all of it is stored in the quiet memory of the land. The earth does not forget. It cannot forget. It carries the imprint of every choice humanity has made, especially the choices we pretend were harmless.

Human beings, however, have perfected the art of forgetting. We forget the lessons our ancestors paid for with their lives. We forget the warnings carved into the ruins of fallen civilizations. We forget the cost of greed, the price of arrogance, the consequences of treating the world as though it were disposable. We forget because forgetting is convenient. The earth remembers because remembering is survival.

Every generation believes it is the first to face crisis, yet the patterns are ancient. Civilizations collapse not because they lack intelligence, but because they refuse to learn from the scars beneath their feet. The soil remembers the empires that exhausted their land. The rivers remember the cities that poisoned their own water. The forests remember the societies that cut down their future to feed their present.

Humanity behaves as though memory were optional. But the earth’s memory is not a metaphor — it is a ledger. And that ledger is beginning to speak.

It speaks in the shifting seasons that no longer follow their old rhythms.
It speaks in coastlines that retreat inch by inch.
It speaks in storms that grow angrier each year.
It speaks in the silence of species that will never return.

These are not mysteries. They are messages. They are the earth’s way of saying: “I warned you. I showed you. I remembered for you.”

But humanity refuses to listen because listening requires humility. It requires acknowledging that the world is not an endless resource but a fragile inheritance. It requires accepting that our actions echo far beyond our lifetimes. It requires understanding that the future is not a distant abstraction — it is a living presence shaped by every decision we make today.

The earth remembers what humanity refuses to learn:

that balance is not optional,
that limits are not insults,
that survival is a collective responsibility.

We treat the planet as though it were a stage built for our performance, forgetting that we are not the main characters — we are temporary guests. The earth will continue long after we are gone, carrying the memory of our choices into the ages that follow.

The question is not whether the earth will endure.

The question is whether humanity will endure with it.

If we continue to forget, the earth will continue to remind us — not with anger, but with consequence. And consequence is the one teacher that never negotiates.

• Read Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Sammy Attoh is a Human Rights Coordinator, poet, and public writer. A member of The Riverside Church in New York City and The New York State Chaplains Group, he advocates for spiritual renewal and systemic justice. Originally from Ghana, his work draws on ancestral wisdom to explore the sacred ties between people, planet, and posterity, grounding his public voice in a deep commitment to human dignity and global solidarity. Read other articles by Sammy.

 

Middle East Danger Zones: A 2026 Update

by Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan / March 20th, 2026

Danger Zones

In February 2026, the United States and Israel attacked Iran, kickstarting a new Middle East ‘energy conflict’. And like most energy conflicts over the past half century, this one too began after the region fell into a ‘danger zone’.

The notion of a danger zone was first introduced in our paper, ‘Bringing Capital Accumulation Back In’ (Nitzan and Bichler 1995). We coined it to denote a period in which the Middle East is likely to experience an oil-related conflict or war and examined its implications for the region’s global political economy.

Capitalism, we argued in our research, was a regime built on the capitalization of power, organized through relative pecuniary quantities and ruled by state-backed, dominant-capital coalitions. In line with this approach, we proposed that, since the late 1960s, Middle East danger zones hinged on the differential profits of dominant oil companies; that is, on whether their rate of return beats or trails the corporate average.

Specifically, we claimed that when the differential profits of the oil companies are positive – namely, when they beat the average – the risk of regional conflict is low. And conversely, when their differential profits are negative – i.e., when they trail the average – the region is in a danger zone, and the risk of conflict is high.

 Nuts and Bolts

Figure 1 highlights the historical relevance of this claim and shows some of its key regularities.¹ The chart juxtaposes the movements of two distinct variables along with a series of explosion-like markers. Let’s explain each of them in turn.

The first variable, plotted as bars against the left scale, depicts the relative performance of a ‘Petro Core’ of leading listed oil companies (named in the figure’s notes). Specifically, it shows the Petro Core’s differential return on equity relative to the average return on equity of the Fortune 500 group of U.S.-based companies. The differential itself, expressed in percentage points, is computed in two steps: (1) by calculating the per cent ratio of net profit to owners’ equity for both the Petro Core and the Fortune 500; and (2) by subtracting the latter from the former. A positive difference (grey bars) means that the Petro Core beats the Fortune 500 average with a higher return on equity. A negative difference (black bars) implies that the Petro Core trails that average, with a lower return on equity.

The second variable, shown as a dashed red series plotted against the right scale, is the change in the relative price of crude oil. This measure is also calculated in two steps: (1) by dividing the dollar price per barrel of Brent oil by the U.S. GDP deflator (rebased to 2024=1); and (2) by subtracting from this result its own 10-year trailing average. The magnitude of this series, expressed in 2024 U.S. dollars, represents the ups and downs in the pricing power of the oil companies (along with OPEC) relative to the pricing power of all U.S. sellers.

Finally, the explosion-like markers indicate the eruption of individual energy conflicts detailed in the figure’s notes.

The chart reveals two important patterns. First, the two variables – the Petro-Core’s differential returns and the changes in the relative price of oil – move tightly together, with a Pearson Correlation coefficient of +0.73 out of a maximum of 1. In other words, the differential return on equity of the large oil companies hinges mostly on their ability to have oil prices rise faster (or fall more slowly) than other corporations raise (lower) theirs.

Second, relative oil prices and differential oil returns both hinge on – and in turn predict – Middle East energy conflicts. As we detail below, these conflicts tend to be preceded by danger zones – namely, stretches of negative differential returns that make oil wars more likely; once a conflict erupts, it tends to raise the relative price of oil; and if and when the rise becomes big enough to switch the Petro Core’s differential returns from negative to positive, the danger zone closes.

The Regularities

Empirically, the chart shows three remarkable regularities.

*        First, and most importantly, for more than half a century now, every energy conflict save one was preceded by the Petro Core trailing the average. In other words, generally, for a Middle East energy conflict to erupt, the leading oil companies first must differentially decumulate.² The only apparent exception to this rule is the 2011 burst of the Arab Spring and the subsequent blooming of outsourced militia wars in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq – conflicts that were financed and supported by a multitude of governments, NGOs and supreme-god churches in and outside the region. The 2011 round erupted without a prior danger zone – although the Petro Core was very close to falling below the average. In 2010, its differential return on equity dropped to a razor-thin 0.4 per cent, down from around 25 per cent in both 2008 and 2009. (The 2023 eruption of the Gaza war, although preceded by a mini oil boom associated with Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, came after a very long streak of massive differential oil losses.)

*        Second, every energy conflict – with two exceptions: the multiple ISIS-related interventions in 2014 and the 2023-2025 Gaza war – was followed by the oil companies beating the average. In other words, war and conflict in the region – processes that customarily are blamed for rattling, distorting and undermining the aggregate economy – have tended to serve the differential interest of the large oil companies (and OPEC) at the expense of leading non-oil firms (and countries).³ This finding, however striking, should not surprise us. As Figure 1 shows, differential oil profits are intimately correlated with the relative price of oil; the relative price of oil in turn is highly responsive to Middle East risk perceptions, real or imaginary; these risk perceptions tend to jump in preparation for and during armed conflict; and as risks mount, they raise the relative price of oil and therefore the differential profits of the oil companies and the relative export revenues of OPEC.

*        Third and finally, according to our data, the Petro Core never managed to beat the average without a preceding energy conflict. In other words, on this count, the differential performance of the oil companies depends not on production, but on the most extreme exercise of power and sabotage: war.

 The Current Moment

Focusing on the most recent wars, we can see that the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine came after a prolonged and very deep danger zone, and that this attack managed to raise the relative price of oil along with the Petro Core’s differential return on equity. Consequently, the Middle East was pulled out of its danger zone, but only briefly.

In 2023, the relative price of oil decelerated, and with the Petro Core’s differential return on equity reverting to negative territory, the Middle East once again slid into a danger zone. In October of that year, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad – seemingly on cue from our chart – attacked Israel, launching a new regional war. But the new war – which quickly expanded to include Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran and drew massive media attention – had only a muted impact on energy prices. Worse still (at least for the oil companies and OPEC), in 2024 the relative price of oil and the Petro Core’s differential returns resumed their decline, sending the region even deeper into the danger zone.

From this perspective, the 2026 joint attack by the United States and Israel on Iran is hardly surprising. As these lines are written, the attack, along with the retaliations by Iran and its proxies, has sent crude oil prices soaring to nearly $100/bbl – their highest level since Russia invaded Ukraine. And if these increases – in absolute terms but mostly relatively to other prices – can be sustained, the Petro Core’s differential returns will likely rise, and the battered Middle East will again be extricated from its danger zone.

Note, though, that since the data in Figure 1 are annual, they reach only till 2025 for the relative price of oil and 2024 for the differential returns of the Petro Core. This limitation is transcended by the somewhat different perspective offered in our closing section below.

A Different Look

Figure 2 examines the process from a global viewpoint, using earnings per share (EPS) reported on a monthly basis.⁴ The top two series in the figure contrast the average EPS performance of the world’s listed integrated oil & gas companies with the average EPS performance of all listed companies in world. Each series measures the annual rate of change of the respective EPS, computed by comparing any given month with the same month a year earlier and smoothed as a three-year trailing average.

The bottom series shows the differential EPS growth of the integrated oil & gas companies. This series is derived, first, by subtracting the EPS growth rate of the world index from the EPS growth rate of the integrated oil & gas index, and then, by expressing the resulting difference as a three-year trailing average. As in Figure 1, grey areas indicate periods during which the integrated oil & gas companies beat the average (positive differential earnings growth), while black areas show periods in which they trail the average (negative differential earnings growth).

Now, note that, while the energy conflicts here are the same as those listed in Figure 1, the measure of differential profit is different in several important respects. (1) The geographical scope is much wider, and the focus is less on corporate size and more on the type of business activity. Whereas in Figure 1, the comparison is between a Petro-Core of four to six firms and the U.S.-based Fortune 500, here the comparison is between all the world’s listed integrated oil & gas companies and the world average for all listed companies. (2) The profit metric is different. Whereas in Figure 1, the proxy of choice is return to equity, here it is earnings per share (EPS). (3) The nature of the variables is different. While in Figure 1 we look at levels, here we examine rates of change. (4) The temporal presentation is more refined. Whereas in Figure 1 the data are annual, here they are monthly, expressed as three-year trailing averages. And (5), the period under examination is shorter – in Figure 1 it starts in 1966, while here the data begin in 1973 (and in 1976 for the three-year trailing averages).

All in all, then, our proxy for differential profits in Figure 2 is very different from the one we use in Figure 1. Yet the stylized patterns – as well as the exceptions to those patterns – are almost the same!

Similarly to Figure 1, the chart shows that, since 1976 (1) all energy conflicts were preceded by the world’s integrated oil companies suffering negative differential earnings growth (with the exception of the 2011 Arab Spring / outsourced wars and the 2014 ISIS-related conflicts, when this differential was very close to zero, but still positive); (2) all conflicts were followed by the integrated oil companies experiencing positive differential earnings growth; and (3) except for the mid-1990s (and in this chart also 2019-2021) the integrated oil companies have not managed to beat the average without a prior energy conflict.

Also, the monthly correlation between differential EPS growth and the rate of change of the relative price of oil (+0.72, as shown in Bichler and Nitzan 2023: Figure 2) is virtually the same as the one shown for the annual differential returns and relative oil price deviations in Figure 1 (+0.73).

Finally, the relations in this figure between the recent energy conflicts and differential oil earnings are the same as those shown in Figure 1: the danger zone in 2021-2022 closed once Russia’s invasion of Ukraine raised relative oil prices and boosted the differential earnings of oil & gas companies; the effect of the 2023 Gaza War on relative oil prices and differential earnings was initially muted and then decelerated sharply; and finally, in 2026, a few months after the differential earnings growth of oil & gas companies turned negative, the United States and Israel attacked Iran.

Today’s dominant capitalists, top state officials and supreme-god clerics believe they run the world. But, in the end, they too, just like their subjects, seem dancing to the all-imposing tune of differential earnings and capitalized power.

References:

Bichler, Shimshon, and Jonathan Nitzan. 2015. Still About Oil? Real-World Economics Review (70, February): 49-79.

Bichler, Shimshon, and Jonathan Nitzan. 2023. Blood and Oil in the Orient: A 2023 Update. Real-World Economics Review Blog, November 10.

Bichler, Shimshon, and Jonathan Nitzan. 2024. The Road to Gaza, Part II: The Capitalization of Everything. Real-World Economics Review (109, November): 18-28.

Nitzan, Jonathan, and Shimshon Bichler. 1995. Bringing Capital Accumulation Back In: The Weapondollar-Petrodollar Coalition — Military Contractors, Oil Companies and Middle-East “Energy Conflicts”. Review of International Political Economy 2 (3): 446-515.

Endnotes:

• 1
  The first version of this chart appeared in Nitzan and Bichler (1995: Figure 10a, p. 499). Our current description of Figure 1 follows and updates the account in Bichler and Nitzan (2024).
• 2
  In the late 1970s and early 1980s, and again during the 2000s, differential decumulation was sometimes followed by a string of conflicts stretching over several years. In these instances, the result was a longer time lag between the initial spell of differential decumulation and some of the subsequent conflicts.
• 3
  A key point to note here is the effect of energy conflicts not on absolute but differential oil returns. For example, in 1969-1970, 1975, 1980-1982, 1985, 1991, 2001-2002, 2006-2007, 2009 and 2012, the rate of return on equity of the Petro Core fell; but in all of these cases the fall was either slower than that of the Fortune 500 or too small to close the positive gap between them, so despite the absolute decline, the Petro Core continued to beat the average.
• 4
  For an early version of this chart, see Bichler and Nitzan (2015: Figure 5, p. 66). Our examination here updates the discussion in that article.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler are co-authors of Capital as Power: A Study of Order and Reorder, RIPE series in Global Political Economy (London and New York: Routledge, 2009). All their publications are freely available from The Bichler & Nitzan Archives. Read other articles by Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan, or visit Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan's website.

The Warmongers Will Never Admit They Were Wrong and Will Never Learn from their Mistakes

by Caitlin Johnstone / March 20th, 2026

Trump’s former national security advisor, John Bolton, has a tweet that’s got me absolutely fuming right now.

“In 2018–2019, I made the case for regime change in Iran as often as I could. Voices in Trump’s orbit often cited Iran’s capacity to close the Strait of Hormuz as a reason against regime change. Trump has been fully aware this is a possibility, and yet did not prepare,” Bolton posted.

Can you believe this shit? Dude’s like “Hey, Trump should have known this war would be hard because people tried to warn him not to listen to me!”

Motherfucker THIS WAS YOUR WAR. You were THE “bomb Iran” guy! You made it your entire personality for DECADES. Over the years, I’ve used your name, God knows how many times, whenever I needed an example of a Beltway swamp monster who’s got a throbbing hard-on for war with Iran. Now you’ve finally got it, and it’s going exactly as badly as everyone said it would, and you’re like, “Yeah, well, he should’ve known better; people tried to warn him about the Strait of Hormuz.” Fuck you.

These professional warmongers never, ever learn from their errors. Many years after the Iraq invasion turned out to be a disaster, John Bolton was still out there telling the media he believed it was a “resounding success,” conceding only “mistakes that were made subsequently” to the ousting of Saddam Hussein.

They never admit they were wrong. They never admit that their war was a bad idea. They only ever acknowledge that it didn’t happen in exactly the way they imagined it happening in their minds. They live in this fantasy world where all their war agendas would unfold beautifully so long as they could personally control every molecule of matter involved in how it happens, completely ignoring that this is impossible and any war is always going to have an unfathomable number of moving parts you can’t control.

In their eyes, the wars are never wrong; they’re only ever executed incorrectly. US military interventionism can never fail; it can only be failed.

Bolton doesn’t even seem to have any idea what Trump could have done differently to stop Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz. I listened to an NPR interview the other day where he slammed Trump for not having “done the planning in advance” to prevent the Iranian blockade, but he never at any time outlined what Trump could have done to accomplish this. He just said there was “a huge hole in the planning” and that “they apparently didn’t take as seriously as they should have the potential to mine the Strait of Hormuz,” without ever saying what they could have done.

He doesn’t know. He himself, Mister Iran War, had no plan for how to carry out this war without disastrous consequences for the US and its allies. He’s spent his entire blood-soaked career pushing for a war he never had any idea how to actually carry out.

These are the kinds of minds they have spearheading the US empire’s wars.

All the worst people are getting exactly what they want, and it turns out they don’t even want it, like Elon Musk tweeting “Whoever said ‘money can’t buy happiness’ really knew what they were talking about” last month. They’re getting everything they asked for, and it’s making everyone miserable, and it’s not even making THEM happy.

The imperial status quo elevates the worst among us. The least wise. The least insightful. The least compassionate. The least deserving. The least qualified.

We need drastic revolutionary change, and we need it now.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Caitlin Johnstone has a reader-supported Newsletter. All her work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. Her work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece and want to read more you can buy her books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff she publishes is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything she publishes. All works are co-authored with her husband Tim Foley. Read other articles by Caitlin.

Iran’s Asymmetrical War Persists Against Hegemony

by Renee Parsons / March 21st, 2026

On February 28, US President Donald Trump launched a joint airstrike with Israel to target the country of Iran. That attack was unconstitutional, illegal, in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is an instrument of international law. The US attack, dubbed Epic Fury, was also an unprovoked war of aggression which the Nuremberg War Crime Trials defined in 1945 as a war crime.

Iran’s response within hours was focused and far exceeded expectations with its precision guided hypersonic Fattah 2 system which is technologically superior and outpaces the Israel-US response. The Iran response exceeded whatever Iron Dome protection Israel assumed was in place.

Within that first day, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was assassinated in his office with his family and hours later 165 students (ages6-12) were killed by a double tap Tomahawk missile strike in the Shajareh Tayyiba elementary school in Teheran; thereby adding potential war crimes to the US-Israel war.

In response to the President’s air strike, Sen. Tim Caine (D-Va0 offered a War Powers Resolution vote which was defeated 53-47 with Sen. Rand Paul (Ky) the only Republican Senator ito support the Resolution. The next day, the House of Representatives also defeated a War Powers Resolution on a 212 -219 vote with two Republicans Rep. Tom Massie (R-Ky) and Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) voting in support.

The Resolutions would have “removed United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.”

In addition, on March 5, Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla) Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee sponsored HR 1099 which affirmed US policy that Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. The vote was 372 – 53 with all Republicans voting Aye and 53 Democrats voting No. This might be qualify as the pot calling the kettle black.

In other words, if the Congress had the wisdom to adopt a War Power Resolution, the situation with Iran might not have escalated and presumably might have forced the President to diplomatically address Iran but as most of us know by now, that is not Trump’s style. Since the entire Congress, with few exceptions, are recipients to large amounts of Zionist campaign donations and the Congress, as a legislative body, has become a dormant shell of its former self.

*****

With the ever aggressive Israel as his partner, a country focused on dismantling much of the Middle East in favor of a Greater Israel project, with a Secretary of War Pete Hegseth who takes his title as a green light to kill and a President who does not know how to spell diplomacy as much as practice it, the conflict continues to escalate costing the US taxpayer $2 billion a day.

There has also been a shortage of defense interceptors to counter incoming missiles while Iran shrewdly targeted Israeli production facilities for destruction. US support for the war in Ukraine and its bombing campaign against the Houthis also contributed to a US shortage of ballistic missile interceptors while Iran maintains a scheduled sustained bombing campaign.

In other words, as the conflict was predicted to last a few days or “throughout the week’ until Monday, the President’s prediction on March 9 that the war will end “very soon” has not materialized nor has the war been the slam-dunk the President expected while less than 10% of Americans support deployment of ground forces in Iran.

Yet Trump appears fearful that his war on Iran is doomed.

On X, Jackson Hinkle interviewed retired Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar for his expertise on Trump’s war against Iran and its continuing escalation. Aguilar is a 2004 Graduate of West Point Military Academy and served as a Green Beret Special Forces Officer rising to the rank of Lt. Colonel. He spent the next twenty five years with deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, the Philippines and Tajikstan and served as a Security Contractor in Gaza. He resigned to become a whistleblower alleging severe misconduct regarding inadequate aid distribution.

During the interview, Aguilar identified the war as “unjustified” and questioned how history will judge the conflict, predicting that, as Nuremberg taught, “just following orders is not a defense” against war crimes. Aguilar reported that US CentCom has begun an active deliberate campaign to target assets in the Hormuz Strait region conducting preparatory strikes in anticipation of bringing the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit to take possession of the Kharg island which has 10,000 Iranian residents. With little clear objective, the US will conduct an amphibious assault on Kharg which Aguilar labeled born out of hubris, arrogance and ego and as well as ‘militarily stupid.’ Aguilar made the dire prediction of ‘tremendous US losses – of both personnel or equipment.”

Aguilar then explained the accelerated conflict with ‘boots on the ground’ as a pretense for the potential use of a tactical nuclear weapon on its list of possible ‘courses of action’ that are ‘on the table.’ The ground assault is little more than a pretext that may begin in a limited fashion, then escalate into a full ground assault with US ground forces on alert; like the 82nd Airborne Division and the 75th Ranger Regiment waiting to be called. While it will take time for the 31st Marine to organize for “theatre,” strategic preparatory efforts are meant to encourage Iranian capitulation – which will not happen. Aguilar state unequivocally: “It’s a lie that Iran is the Big Bad Wolf of the Region.”

When asked whether he would suggest whether current military members might refuse to fight, Aguilar said he was calling upon Admiral Brad Cooper, AF General and Chief of JCS Dan Kaine and all the Service Chiefs of Staff to stand against this illegal and unjustified war, to stand by the oath taken in support of the Constitution and to conscientiously object approaching every avenue legally. Aguilar added that he would not fight in this war and suggested using every legal avenue at their disposal to ‘get out of the war.’

If American forces are able to access the Island or nearby area, Aguilar further anticipates potential dire predicament as American troops may not be able to leave the Island as their presence will dramatically escalate the conflict. American troops may become trapped, to die or be captured, The more the US escalates the conflict, the more costly the conflict will be. Aguilar expressed concern that as escalation increases may lead to Trump who can be unpredictably irrational, consider the use of a tactical nuclear weapon which is currently ‘on the table.’

In addition, the US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has urged the US adopt the ‘no quarter, no mercy given’ position which is considered a heinous war crime under US military code and international law, even just in the verbalizing the phrase. Under international humanitarian law, “it is especially forbidden […] to declare that no quarter will be given” established under Article 23(d) of the 1907 Hague Convention IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land.” Hegseth has received some serious push back by the military establishment; whether he will pay attention is another matter.

In military lingo, ‘no quarter’ (no dwelling) is said to mean take no prisoners, no surrender and killing enemy combatants unequivocally.

Meanwhile, back in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed that “no revolution in Iran can be accomplished from the air”, that there needs to be a significant “ground component” as well. The question arises how many Zionist or IDF ground troops will Netanyahu contribute to the effort to destroy Iran. In response, Trump stated that ”I’m not putting troops anywhere” adding that the US would do whatever is necessary to keep the price of oil down. Although Reuters reported the Trump Administration was weighing its options, according to an anonymous source.

The President recently announced he does not want a ceasefire explaining,

Well, look we could have dialogue but I don’t want to do a ceasefire. Now you don’t do a ceasefire when you are obliterating the other side. They don’t have a Navy, they don’t have an Air Force, they don’t have any equipment, they don’t have any spotters, they don’t have anti aircraft, they don’t have any radar and their leaders have all been killed at every level. We’re not looking to do that.

And yet the Iranians control the pace of the war with an asymmetrical strategy as the US plans boots on the ground; the Hormuz Strait is still blocked and costing the US taxpayer $2 billion a day as the Iranians have not yet used their strongest, most modern hypersonic missiles.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Renee Parsons has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and a staff member in the US House of Representative in Washington, DC. Before its demise, she was also a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. Read other articles by Renee.