In 1953, the CIA and British Intelligence were behind a coupe to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran because the oil industry in Iran had been nationalized. They helped to install the Shah because he would do what they wanted. We never seem to learn.
"We"? The American people weren't consulted on whether to overthrow a democratic government in Iran on behalf of big oil, so let's not spread the responsibility beyond those who instigated, planned and benefited from the CIA's war on democrachy.
And just hypothesized, if Ayatollah wore a stupid. Immature, red baseball cap, or simply give the fugrer rights to a golf course, it would have avoided the war. Government by petulance, tantrum and personal economic self interest. . . . Can you imagine Washington Jefferson Madison Roosevelt Eusenhower wearing a red baseball cap like year?
You feel I should feel responsible for the overthrow of Mosaddegh by the CIA. Our democracy is too impure and our government too hidden for me to feel like I own that, though I do feel like Americans need to be active in controlling their government.
Do you feel that the American people at large, you and I, need to accept responsility for ICE's murders?
Only in a tangential way. Even if we did not personally vote for anyone currently in office, the current situation is what we have all allowed to happen. The situation was enabled by both action by some as well as a refusal to act by others. Democracy is not a spectator sport. Every single person is responsible for what is accepted and not challenged, for what happens when we don't show up. Everything that has been allowed to happen by those who knew better is what brought us to this moment.
I’m not sure that that Iran is an actual democracy. This is what I saw online.
“Iran is not considered a fully democratic country; it is an Islamic republic with a hybrid system of theocratic and democratic elements, often described as an electoral autocracy or religious oligarchy"
Neither is the U.S. I'd like to call it an "aspiring democracy" but since the beginning of the Reagan administration that claim has been shaky, but it's definitely not accurate now. The Citizens United decision (2010), removing limits on the ability of $$$ to warp the electoral process, pushed it over the edge. Left to its own devices, economic power will nullify the three constitutional branches of government -- and that's exactly what it's doing now.
Citizens put a dagger into fair elections. Not to mention the giant waste of money (tv ads galore) Yup pretty soon a huge chunk of our media will be owned by one billionaire
Since when are "the American people" consulted about CIA operations or, for that matter, FBI operations or anything to do with the U.S. military? More to the point, though the specifics of CIA and Britain's MI6 involvement weren't acknowledged for many, many years, it wasn't exactly a secret that the U.S. was working overtime to cultivate First World allies in the Third World, and they didn't have independent leaders like Mossadegh in mind. Iran was crucial both for its oil and for its proximity to the Soviet Union.
Exactly…and the tragic irony is the Iranian people keep getting sold the same lie in different packaging.
….Overthrows democratically elected Mossadegh, installs Shah, Iranians eventually revolt against Western puppet.
1979: Revolution brings theocracy claiming independence from Western control.
2026: Trump bombs them promising “freedom” while Gulf monarchies who paid for the operation position their preferred client.
Each cycle, Iranians trade one form of oppression for another because the goal was never Iranian self-determination, it’s always been control of oil and regional dominance.
Now Reza Pahlavi (Shah’s son) is being positioned as “opposition leader” while Trump simultaneously bans VOA from mentioning him. The people stuck in the middle keep getting authoritarians serving foreign interests.
Joyce is right about the illegality, but here’s the behavioral reality:
Laws only constrain power when institutions enforce them. Venezuela proved executive war-making works without consequences. Iran confirms the pattern is operational. Congress learned from TV. Courts issue rulings that get defied within 24 hours.
The November NSS explicitly outlined this as doctrine: regional champions execute regime change, constitutional constraints get bypassed as standard procedure.
Trump isn’t violating norms…he’s operating within a framework plus corruption incentives designed to make violations routine.
Schumer calling for War Powers Resolution is performative unless Congress has enforcement mechanisms beyond symbolic votes.
The guardrails Joyce correctly identifies don’t just need defending, they need rebuilding because the ones we’re counting on already failed to prevent this.
The law matters. But when the machinery enabling illegal wars (NSS doctrine, Gulf state bribes purchasing policy, complicit institutions) faces zero accountability, citing UN Charter violations becomes documentation for future prosecution, not present constraint.
We’re past prevention.
We’re in aftermath analysis.
It’s a new world, norms and laws don’t constrain those that don’t give a…
I am so grateful that during my college years, I chose to make friends with persons from several different countries. One was from Iran.
He was a great friend, kind and a good person. We did not discuss religion or politics. We just shared a friendship.
When will we stop judging an entire population by its leader(s). I wish we would not be judged by the world according to the cruel and greedy character of Trump and his minions BUT here we are!!!! I do not "get" the attraction!!!! I pray our country can survive this hell, before we completely implode!!!!
People are individuals…what a government does never represents the entirety of its population. It’s simplicity and ignorance that causes us to conflate the two.
I have many friends from Iran. My barber is Iranian, just visited family there months ago. He’s Zoroastrian, a fascinating religion and culture that predates Islam in Persia by millennia.
Human beings are connected to culture, nationality, ethnicity—-but leaders of those things do not represent people as individuals. That’s especially true in authoritarian systems where populations have no say in policy.
Social media makes it too easy to push tribal grouping onto people. It’s disgusting and disturbing. Every human being deserves to be treated as an individual with the right to flourish.
What any leader does—whether United States, Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, wherever—is not representative of those people. The Iranian regime is brutal. So is bombing schools and killing 85 children in Minab. Neither represents the Iranian people who just want functioning governance, human rights, and to live without terror from their own government or foreign missiles.
Judge systems and leaders. Not populations trapped under them.
We will only begin to survive this current trajectory if we save our elections from interference from trump and those who want to eliminate being held accountable. This is not their playground, although that is what they wish in their insatiable quest for power. As citizens, we really are the last line of defense, since Congress and the SC are corrupt. It's up to us to protect our ability to change Congress and stop these criminals. That is what is at stake the midterm election.
The British were in on it for the oil. Americans overthrew Iran's burgeoning democracy because they feared it could lead to communism--in an Islamic country! America has never been mature enough to wield its limitless power responsibly, especially under the GOP.
“We never seem to learn”. Regime change in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia, to cite recent examples, all resulted in the rise of democracies in those countries. Didn’t it?
It’ll be different this time, right? Yippee we’re all going to war!
TRUMP HAS BEEN KILLING PEOPLE IN IRAN AND ELSEWHERE IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The lifetime chairman of the Board of Peace, who castigated the Norwegian prime minister for Trump’s failure to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, aptly changed the Department of Defense to the Department of War.
At 92 (and a former Foreign Service Officer) I have witnessed instances when a president initiated war under phony circumstances. LBJ did this in Vietnam with the manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld lied that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction to get us into the disastrous Iraqi war.
Trump, acting like a self-appointed king, avoids such ‘niceties,’ as well as congressional approval. Murdering ‘fishermen’ in the Caribbean and the Pacific is clearly illegal. A ‘snatch and run’ in Venezuela that killed over 70 locals is imperially illegal.
In Iran Trump has established an even greater magnitude of illegality. As #45 he abruptly withdrew the US from a carefully constructed 6-power agreement that severely restricted Iran’s nuclear potential.
As #47 he bloviated about the lack of firm control of Iran’s nuclear activities and then sent B-2s to try to destroy underground nuclear operations. Then he had two realtors engage in ‘negotiations’ with Iran about nuclear and missile matters. These talks were scheduled for continuation when, last Saturday he and Netanyahu launched a devastating ongoing air and missile blitzkrieg against Iran.
At no time had Trump leveled with the American people or Congress. Leaked information about Iran being very close to making nuclear bombs and missiles capable of attacking the United States WAS TOTALLY FALSE.
In an eight minute speech on Saturday, he stated that the objective was ‘regime change.’ Huh?
‘King’ David is seeking to ‘run’ Venezuela and now, through carpet bombing, get rid of Iranian baddies and, miraculously, have goodies take over?
Like Joyce, I am not a war legal expert. However, in any international tribunal Trump would be convicted for his unilateral actions—with the Nuremberg Trials as a legal primer.
We need not be experts on the law of war to see that Trump is violating our Constitution and the principles of the American Revolution. Restraining the power to waste Americans' lives and tax dollars in foreign wars was one of the primary reasons for the American Revolution. Thomas Paine in Common Sense appealed to that very sentiment to explain to Americans why they must be willing to risk their lives fighting for their own liberty in a war at home. If they failed to fight for their own liberty, their lives would be wasted by a tyrant sending them to fight foreign wars:
"[T]he fate of war is uncertain." America should "never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support [wars] in either Asia, Africa, or Europe."
"Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because, it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free port.
[America's] trade will always be a protection."
The truth is that Trump is dangerously and obviously violating Article II (as much as Article I) of our Constitution. Article II, Section 3 explains how the President is required to support and interact with Congress regarding war (and tariffs):
The People commanded that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” If the president thinks war or tariffs are necessary and expedient, he must make the case to Congress. If he needs help making his case, “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”
In Article I, the People vested in Congress, alone, the power to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" and to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations."
Article II expressly limits all "executive Power" of the President to the following: “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and "faithfully execute the Office of President" to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's it. Nothing in our Constitution gave any president any power to start wars or other conflicts of his unilateral choosing.
I wish for a President who read, studied and respected our Constitution, and laws of order and decency. I wish for a President who cared for the future of our children and who worked with states to improve education opportunities for all children including valuing those with disabilities. I dream of a President who would care for and respect the sacred lands that have been set apart to honor the creatures who live within those parks, the waters, the natural treasures/resources that are contained within these magnificent places. I wish that each and all Americans would open our eyes to the conditions of our American Indians who have served beside us in battles, but too often are forgotten. They were here first. They served as guides, they fed us through harsh winters when those from foreign countries came to what they saw as "their land", "their home".
What is it with us "white folk"? Are we so insecure around black and brown persons that we must kill them and their beautiful, brilliant, creative ways of life, of music, of artistic brilliance, of poetry of understanding nature and its healing power, their athletic gifts of amazing power and strength and coordination....gifts we can NEVER duplicate...even when we try.
Some would rather call them "savages", I say no less than we are, if you want to point out the darkness within each of us.
Returning to "great leaders" most recognize that all of mankind has its dark side. It is those humble and great ones who recognize this within and fight against it in order to put goodness first. Those men and women push back against evil; they fight against it because they know that evil power self destroys and harms the lives of those near us as well as those far away.
The person sitting in the seat of President of the USA, is dishonoring all the best we have dreamed of becoming. He is a "dark guide" for our country and its inhabitants.
Though he has never served within our armed forces, he sends the sons and daughters of our country who have pledged to lay down their lives for this country to kill innocent persons of another country rather than work hard to develop healthy, workable relationships with its leaders.
As our great nation plunges into disarray, how long are we going to be silent?
My husband and I have participated in respectful marches...non violent, displaying our opinions as fellow Americans standing with us do the same. We will continue because we love this country. We love "red and yellow black and white" fellow Americans who have given themselves responsibly as citizens. We are together, protesting for the wellbeing of our nation and for one another.
Many people who are speaking out to support Trump or support his attacks on Iran (last year and this year) or on Venezuela (in the capital or in the ocean) are quibbling over the meaning of "war." Many also like to highlight that many times the U.S. has waged war without a "declaration of war" by Congress.
They're committing at least three obvious and egregious mistakes: (1) trying to read our Constitution by relying on a mere dictionary, (2) ignoring other relevant parts of our Constitution and (3) ignoring the principles and purposes of the text, e.g., re: separation of powers.
The most relevant powers that were enumerated in Article I as being vested exclusively in Congress include the power to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations" and to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
The powers of Congress also include authorizing executive action that is necessary and proper in relation to the enumerated powers (and prohibiting executive action that isn't necessary or isn't proper). That's why Article I expressly emphasizes that “Congress shall have Power” to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [all] Powers [of Congress], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including the executive and judicial branches).
So the meaning or existence of mere "war" or a mere "declaration of war" is barely, if at all, relevant. The primary principle at work is the separation of powers for the purpose of preserving our liberties.
In Article I, the People vested in Congress the foregoing "legislative Powers." In Article II the People vested in the President only the "executive Power." Our Constitution clarified that, generally, "executive Power" means only the power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and to "faithfully execute the Office of President," i.e., to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Regarding the particular powers of Congress at issue here, "executive Power" means merely the power to "be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
When the President exercises "executive Power" as the "Commander in Chief" to attack another nation, he's obviously and necessarily almost always required to act under express authorization by Congress. An exception applies to the President to the same extent as it applied to state governors (especially in the first decades after the Constitution was written and ratified). Article I, Section 10 clarified that a "State" may "without the Consent of Congress" unilaterally "engage in War" if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Justice Scalia, in his (famous) dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson in 1988, emphasized "that we have 'a government of laws and not of men.'" He emphasized that "[t]he Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison [emphasized] that “[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.” As Justice Scalia emphasized, "Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless."
Madison in Federalist No. 47 (quoting Montesquieu in The Spirt of the Laws in 1754) emphasized the reason for the rule (separation of powers):
"There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner."
Trump and his supporters are highlighting the self-evident truth that Montesquieu, Madison and Scalia highlighted: Trump and his supporters, ultimately, are attacking and undermining our Constitution by supporting tyranny and the president's unconstitutional usurpation of powers that the People reserved to Congress to secure our liberty and keep us safe from tyrants.
Ruben Gallego, a Democratic senator for Arizona and Iraq war veteran, responded on social media: “Draft dodger is willing to sacrifice working-class kids. How charitable of him.”
Jason, I think there is a reasonable tolerance here of name-calling, particularly against the obvious miscreants, but I think the word you have chosen here is a little beyond the pale. Regardless of the image you are trying to engender (righteous or not), you are using a HIGHLY offensive word to almost everyone and I think you should "redact" it from your comments. That's my opinion, of course, but I ask respectfully in recognition of the feelings of not only myself but others as well.
Jon - I wish I could take credit for this latest addition to my collection of names that illuminate traits of the Orange Anus; but, this one was created by TheJuiceMedia in their latest Honest Government Ad:
But, BE WARNED, I you are offended by words like fuck, SCROTUS or pussy; DO NOT click on those links!
If anyone out there is not ready to fully embrace free speech, you are NOT ready for the coming battle. TheJuiceMedia is reaching people much younger than what I guess is the average age of readers of Civil Discourse.
I am rarely offended by language, even coarse language. NONE of the words you used in this post offend me or would prompt a comment similar to the one I sent earlier. The c-word used in that post one of the few words that I find offensive and less because of myself than because I think it ostracizes way too many women for obvious reasons. It is a word that represents male oppression and like the n-word, it typically has a power imbalance. Women will use it (particularly comediennes) as a way of retaining their own power, but that is NOT afforded to men (just as the n-word is typically not afforded to white people).
It is your right to ignore what I say but I am just letting you know that for me, it demeans you to do that. Your choice and you can of course insist that I am an idiot, but I am not and your refusal to consider my request suggests the opposite.
Seriously? Profanity is the banner you march under and you equate it with a defense of the constitutional rule of law? FYI - free speech protections actually refer to protecting us from government suppression.
In this time and place your indulgence/revelry in name calling is a trivialization of a grave situation. It is an indulgence which may amuse you. It is hardly an effective response to this moment.
Freud and others are on to something in suggesting that name calling is 'the lowest form of verbal joke because it requires the least amount of intellectual effort, or technique, to create. And the cheapest because it depends on wordplay rather than a more complex, structured joke, making the smallest demand on technical expression.' I'll take Spike Jones, Mel Brooks, and Jon Stewart for comic relief
I had the same reaction, Jon Rosen. That is a terrible word, even tho it may be acceptable in the UK, or somewhere else.
I say this as a woman, and I say this as a person within a broad conversation.
If anyone comes up short in creative, effective derogatory words and phrases for Felon (my only word for that nasty, illiterate, selfish, violent murderer), we could create a repository of effective, funny, on-point, stinging, accurate descriptors.
He is willing to involve us in Iran's affairs because he is subservient to Netanyahu.
Is anyone else asking why, after two parties passed laws obligating Americans to obey loyalty oaths to the Zionist Israeli government in 38 states but have passed none to date obligating American citizens to obey loyalty oaths to the authoritarian Russian government, it is invariably the latter that gets first mention as interfering in American elections and American governance? That is true in mainstream corporate media and in several Substack blogs that I subscribe to.
Is there possibly an affliction among American political writers called "Israeli Avoidance Syndrome?"
Let me respond to this comment. There is a HUGE difference between Israel which has been an ally of the United States for its entire existence regardless of its leadership which has varied, and Russia nee the Soviet Union which has been at best a highly variable political entity for over 100 years since the communist revolution, and has only rarely had its interests in alignment with the US. In addition, Israel is a tiny country of 10 million people compared to Russia which has 15 times as many people and a land area that is about 80,000 square miles contrasted with Russia which is over 6 million square miles (the physically largest single country on earth).
Your question is also highly misleading. The laws passed in support of Israel do not require Americans to pledge any kind of loyalty to Israel. The laws you are referring to (I think) are laws intended to commit American businesses and states to opposing sanctions imposed on Israel due to their current government. That is in no way requiring US citizens to pledge loyalty to Israel and to suggest so is simply in error and wrong. Personally I do not support those laws and I believe Netanyahu should be held accountable for his actions and ditto Trump, but I recognize that political realities in the world will probably prevent that from happening, at least not any time soon.
Your comment feels highly anti-semitic to me and regardless of my feelings towards Netanyahu's wrong-headed government, I also feel highly supportive of Israel's right to exist without the hindrance and attacks on it by surrounding right-wing Arab governments. Neither side gets much of my support in this latest Trump/Netanyahu debacle but that does not mean I support the Iranian regime any more either.
My question about why political journalists cannot address the influence of Israel and governance is "misleading" only if someone is trying to shame the person who asked it into silence. Particularly, trying to so by labeling them as "anti-semitic" as you just did truly discloses what you are trying to do.
We can boycott and organize boycotts in the USA against American corporations under the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights. Why are we passing special legislation to try to silence American citizens for any other nation's corporations?
Fortunately, AI can provide some discussion without fear of attempts by those working on behalf of a foreign government trying to intimidate. I just did a short query. Readers, try it yourselves.
"1. State-Level Legislation
A total of 38 states have enacted laws or executive orders designed to discourage or
generally take two forms:
• Contract-Focused Laws: Prohibiting state agencies from contracting with individuals or companies that boycott Israel.
• Investment-Focused Laws: Requiring state pension and investment funds to divest from companies participating in BDS.
Recent Developments (2024–2026):
Alaska
(Feb 2024): Governor Mike Dunleavy issued an administrative order requiring state contracts to include a clause against boycotting Israel.
Florida
(July 2025): Expanded its existing law to specifically target academic boycotts of Israel.
Utah
(Jan 2026): Amended its law to include a broader "anti-boycott" framework, prohibiting the state from contracting with companies that boycott not only Israel but also the fossil fuel, timber, and firearms industries.
2. Federal Legislation and Executive Action
While no comprehensive federal anti-BDS law has been enacted, several targeted bills have moved through Congress:
• H.R. 3050 (Countering Hate Against Israel by Federal Contractors Act): Introduced in April 2025, this bill seeks to prohibit federal agencies from contracting with companies engaged in a boycott of Israel.
• IGO Anti-Boycott Act (H.R. 867): Reintroduced in January 2025, this bill aims to penalize U.S. persons or entities that participate in boycotts imposed by international organizations like the United Nations.
• Executive Action: Following his reelection, President Donald Trump restored a 2019 executive order in early 2025 that targets the boycott movement, particularly in the context of federal funding for universities.
3. Judicial Challenges
The constitutionality of these laws remains a subject of intense litigation:
• Mixed Rulings: Federal courts in Arizona, Kansas, Texas, and Georgia have previously struck down or blocked anti-BDS laws for violating First Amendment rights.
• Eighth Circuit Ruling: In a major 2022 decision (affirmed by the Supreme Court’s refusal to review in 2023), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Arkansas's anti-BDS law was constitutional, arguing that it regulates "purely commercial purposes" rather than protected speech.
• Legislative Adjustments: In response to court losses, several states (like Georgia and Texas) have amended their laws to only apply to larger contracts (e.g., over $100,000) or companies with more than 10 employees to avoid infringing on the rights of individual contractors."
Looks like there is a lot to discuss here about influence on governance of American citizens, particularly on the day many of us woke to an illegal war both domestically and internationally that we waged jointly with the one country who has lobbied America for doing that for decades.
Your language in your post communicates solidarity with Netanyahu's April 24, 2024, video address calling peaceful campus protests against ethnic cleansing developed in 45 of our 50 states, 97% of which were peaceful, “Antisemitic mobs” and coined the “Pro-Palestinian" label, and demanded militant crackdowns to end U.S. protests. Mainstream media adopted those terms immediately, as did Joe Biden when he addressed the nation.
Were they "mobs?" Were the studies finding the main reason Democrats lost votes was responding to those in power at that time calling their constituents "anti-semitic" who were resisting advocacy that they support apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. and being encouraged NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT?
Now, we have wholesale attacks on our First Amendment like these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlHuAtHdjQY and militant attacks against protests by a government who created an occupying force larger than most nations' armies.
You just tried to intimidate me into silence, but I am going to respond by encouraging talking about this more. I intend to encourage it every day.
You can be an ass without actually braying. I responded to your obviously ignorant comment. I did not in any way attempt to "silence" you, and your non-intuitive leap to that conclusion just confirms my suspicions.
I did not call you anti-semitic, I simply said that your comment FELT that way to me, especially as I am Jewish and I tend to be sensitive about such things - your refusal to be aware of other people's sensitivities, or worse to care about them doesn't put you in a good light although I expect that matters little to you if at all.
If you aren't willing to listen to others, and you only care to insist on your own right of "free speech", then you simply confirm my suspicions. Free speech may PERMIT you to make such comments, but that doesn't mean you must do it.
You certainly have the right to be an ass, but I have the equivalent right to call you out on it as I have.
I think this is a good place for me to confess that I have no idea how to state my disgust and disrespect for "Bebe" without treading on the "hate Israel" beartrap. For me, he was truly the worse person I could consider within the top drawer of "World Leaders". He is no leader, but he is all things terrible.
However, 01/20/2025 launched the worse thing I could imagine, (and I actually did imagine) - trump and his lowlife cabal. He is worse than Netanyahu, IMO, because he has no bottom to fall onto. He just keeps going darker and darker into his treatment of us, and our World partners.
I’m no fan of Bibi but I’ve read in several sources that the Saudis were pushing heavily for the attack in private communications with White House. Don’t mistake my meaning. Israel was absolutely a key player in the attack, as the presence of their military clearly shows, but they weren’t the only player there. The attacks on Iran will not end well for anyone.
"The attacks on Iran will not end well for anyone."
Re: Oil. They may end well for Putin. Who Trump has dealings with.
Re: Hobbling Iran, they may end well for the Arab nations who have resented non- Arab Iran's dominance. And have been filling Trump, Kushner, and Witkoff's pockets
See https://www.levernews.com/the-dark-money-operatives-pushing-for-regime-change-in-iran/ There are a lot of unsavory characters on the same page as the Trump-MAGA/"Christian" agenda as the Netanyahu-Zionist/"Jewish" agenda sparing no effort to conflate legitimate religious belief with their narcissistic authoritarian political agenda. It's easy to spot their acolytes here trying to label people "anti-semites" who note the hypocrisy.
This international ruling class has strong ties to the Epstein class. Suggest visiting https://www.dropsitenews.com/s/epstein-and-israel for a great investigative series. They have never failed a fact check. Jon and Daniel don't want us reading their reporting either.
The genocidal Netanyahu regime is in the spotlight. But not the 'prime mover' of Trump's overdetermined impulse to attack Iran.
In the Bush years, John Bolton and others urged Israel to prove its loyalty to the USA by bombing Iran. In his first term, Trump fired Bolton for pushing to bomb Iran. What has changed? Trump, Kushner, and Witkoff have taken huge sums of money - and are looking for more - from Arab nations who have long resented the dominance of (non- Arab) Iran. This, as intelligence experts Malcolm Nance and Jacob Kaarsbo have emphasized, is also about who controls Islam. (See link below.)
Who benefits from the rise in oil prices by Trump sidelining Iran (and Venezuela)? Putin.
The largest supporter of the Netanyahu regime is CUFI (Christians United For Israel.)
10 million strong, growing, and essential to the Republican regime and to Trump in particular. In their belief, when all Jews are 'in gathered' to Israel, Christ will return, and Jews will be converted or condemned to purgatory.
"Anti-Semitic Zionists
Among Evangelical groups in the USA, Christian Zionists have a special relation to the state of Israel. As important Trump constituents, they have a huge influence on his foreign policy and are increasingly crowding out Jewish interest groups. Their ideology is inherently anti-Semitic, but they tend to hide this fact.
Among Trump supporters, Christian Zionists are especially strong, whereas Jewish voters tend to oppose him.
Christian Zionism is a belief held by many Evangelicals, who number one quarter of the US Christian population, but adhere to a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. Christian Zionists believe that Israel must gather all the Jews of the world, enlarge its territory, destroy Muslim holy places, and ethnically cleanse “the holy land” of all non-Jews. Many assume that this must be done to facilitate the return of Christ. Evangelicals of this kind support Israel, but not Judaism. In their worldview, Jews play a merely instrumental role. The implicit subtext is that Jews do not belong in American communities, because good Jews move to Israel. Their ideology is tinged with anti-Semitism, and it fits the picture that Trump himself has a pattern of using anti-Semitic memes (see essay by Benjamin Baltheser in D+C/E+Z e-Paper 2019/10, Focus section).
These things, however, are only rarely expressed explicitly. "
You obviously read more than the sites written by investigators afflicted by Israeli Avoidance Syndrome in reporting. Thanks for the cited sources.
"These things" are "rarely expressed explicitly" for the same reason that women and children in the homes of domestic abusers bear their abuse in silence. Their abusers spare no effort to intimidate them with fear from talking about it because they know there is no faster way to end abuse than to shine light on it and discuss it openly to replace the shame with the feelings of support that come from acceptance of being heard.
Here, the abusers try to intimidate with personal attacks and labels. They will do so both overtly and through passive-aggressive attempts to do same while pretending they aren't doing what they are really doing. Expect a rage reaction when calling them out on it.
"These things" are "rarely expressed explicitly" for the same reason that women and children in the homes of domestic abusers bear their abuse in silence. "
No. CUFI Evangelicals don't mention their end goal because it would not be strategic to their alliance with AIPAC. Jews affiliated with AIPAC don't mention it because CUFI is essential to keeping Republican officials aligned with their shared agenda.
The governments in the region that are aligned against Iran have given or invested at least hundreds of millions of dollars in Trump family enterprises. The war is the pro quo for these personal benefits to Trump.
That theory has a lot of evidence supporting it. If there is a more plausible one, I have yet to hear it.
Despite all the euphoria about Khameini's killing, to me it looks like state-sponsored murder under the cover of a self-declared war, which could have much larger consequences (i can hear the Iranian rockets being intercepted whilst writing this). Make Assinations Great Again.... who is next, America?
Thank you, Professor, Stephen Miller is a bit of case information! I am glad that you understand the law and logic behind this war. My father’s told yes , they had to kill men during WW2, towards the end of their lives they had regretted doing this. I’m sad for America. Most of all it should have been done in a legal manner by speaking to the congress and senate about the war powers act!
In my limited opinion, what this is really about is pressure from Saudi Arabia, who has been locked in with Iran regarding oil rights, etc., as well as Israel's long-term mutual animosity towards Iran. The Saudis have attacked our homeland or properties overseas repeatedly, but have never truly been held accountable due to their oil power and resultant wealth related to several of our presidents. I have absolutely no doubt at all that Prince Muhammed convinced Jared and Trump that they would be given huge amounts of money if they cooperated with Israel to attack Iran. In no way am I saying that Iran has been a "positive" influence in the region. They have shown their cruelty to their own people, especially their women, as well as other Middle Eastern countries, and have turned their ancient country into a Muslim nationalistic state. But no one should ever think that Trump would enter into such a conflagration with a known enemy who would not hesitate to attack us, if possible, unless he was making huge cash from the deal. And as usual, the Saudis look innocent. This will only end badly. And, of course, where is Congress? At the bar I guess, choking down martinis and bitching about those in the WH when they totally negate their Constitutional responsibilities.
And surely with these lethal and sophisticated weapons they could have avoided the school. When I think of all the children who have been harmed in Gaza, Iran and by ICE it absolutely breaks my heart.
Thank you for your continuous work in explaining the guardrails to us. (And I'm happy to be a paid subscribers.) Here's my question: even if Congress returns to admonish Trump, what will he do about it, since he's not following laws, and breaking them seem to result in zero consequences? I believe in the rule of law, I'd just like to see accountability. Can the international laws, or the countries that enforce them, do anything here? Can they also release whatever they have in the Epstein files?
If regime change is really what this misbegotten effort is supposedly all about, you don't make things worse for the population you want to rally around your preferred new government. You start covertly and build support. The last thing to do is make a performative show of force and then say okay, it's now all up to you folks. Good luck. Little doubt that succession for the 86-year-old Khamenei and his lieutenants has been in place for years. And now there's word that his successor is likely to be as much or more (if that's possible...) of a hardliner.
And, in the grown-up World, if we blew away $$$ millions in ammunition and participated in "regime change", for no true, immediate reason....
The US has no true, Global reason to attack anyone or any place.
However, the Madmen in our White House, trump, stevie and heggie don't care. They appear to not even understand the immensity of their actions, including taking our ships and other fire power away from truly necessary locations on Earth for no publically-stated reason.
They were stopped from invading Greenland, maybe even Canada, and likely Panama, but they had the means to shuffle around our Military assets until they settled on a Country where much of the US would either not care, or not understand the great criminality of those actions.
Somewhat off-topic, but let us not forget that Jarjar Kushner, who could never have gotten a security clearance even to lick a postage stamp except for his father-in-law's arm-twisting, is getting several million dollars a year from the Saudis to look out for THEIR interests, is Benedict Donald's chief and primary "negotiator" with Vladimir Putin, Bibi Netanyahu, Arab oil sheikhs, and others purportedly on America's behalf but most assuredly on Degenerate Don's.
Like saying murderer is legally on thin ice. Tariffs were illegal so he extended them for 5 months and court allowed them for months despite court rulings saying they were illegal. Plus innocent Americans being murdered and called terrorists. Plus torture. Im no expert but seems like the constitution has been shredded.
Just a point about your tariff comment. The tariffs were permitted to stay in effect while being litigated at the Appeals Court and Supreme Court level by Supreme Court order. Whether that was a good decision will become clearer in the coming months.
Once the Supreme Court struck down the illegal tariffs, the US suspended them. The tariffs that remain in effect are NOT the ones struck down by SCOTUS. What was struck down were the highly variable tariffs that were targeted at specific countries. There are other laws (that were NOT struck down) that permit even tariffs across the board that remain in effect and that is what Trump did after his tariff approach was ruled illegal.
Trump is frustrated by this because his whole purpose was to try to impose severe tariff penalties on countries he disliked or was in disputes with (like Canada) while giving favored nation status tariffs to countries he likes or who have paid him off. The current SCOTUS decision makes that difficult or impossible for him to achieve. Whether he will come up with another way to re-impose variable tariffs also remains to be seen, but for now, it has not yet happened.
Also the tariffs he "extended" for 5 months were specifically limited to that period by the laws that authorize them. Those laws have NOT been struck down by the Supreme Court and Trump is using them to try to do some of what he was doing before but it is a lot more difficult for him now. Sorry that the details are so complicated but no one ever said American policies would be simple and easy :-)
In 1953, the CIA and British Intelligence were behind a coupe to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran because the oil industry in Iran had been nationalized. They helped to install the Shah because he would do what they wanted. We never seem to learn.
"We"? The American people weren't consulted on whether to overthrow a democratic government in Iran on behalf of big oil, so let's not spread the responsibility beyond those who instigated, planned and benefited from the CIA's war on democrachy.
And just hypothesized, if Ayatollah wore a stupid. Immature, red baseball cap, or simply give the fugrer rights to a golf course, it would have avoided the war. Government by petulance, tantrum and personal economic self interest. . . . Can you imagine Washington Jefferson Madison Roosevelt Eusenhower wearing a red baseball cap like year?
That is not how it works.
We are responsible for our government.
Yes, we are. End of story. Own it.
You feel I should feel responsible for the overthrow of Mosaddegh by the CIA. Our democracy is too impure and our government too hidden for me to feel like I own that, though I do feel like Americans need to be active in controlling their government.
Do you feel that the American people at large, you and I, need to accept responsility for ICE's murders?
Only in a tangential way. Even if we did not personally vote for anyone currently in office, the current situation is what we have all allowed to happen. The situation was enabled by both action by some as well as a refusal to act by others. Democracy is not a spectator sport. Every single person is responsible for what is accepted and not challenged, for what happens when we don't show up. Everything that has been allowed to happen by those who knew better is what brought us to this moment.
Linda,
I completely agree, particularly the 90M who did not vote in the 2024 election.
Yes. It is our government. We have not prevented it - yet.
I’m not sure that that Iran is an actual democracy. This is what I saw online.
“Iran is not considered a fully democratic country; it is an Islamic republic with a hybrid system of theocratic and democratic elements, often described as an electoral autocracy or religious oligarchy"
Kinda like what we are becoming if we the SAVE Act passes. ...although we would be WHITE CHRISTIAN Republic rather than Islamic.
As horrible as the Ayatollah was WE the people did not ask for this...nor did Congress.
Neither is the U.S. I'd like to call it an "aspiring democracy" but since the beginning of the Reagan administration that claim has been shaky, but it's definitely not accurate now. The Citizens United decision (2010), removing limits on the ability of $$$ to warp the electoral process, pushed it over the edge. Left to its own devices, economic power will nullify the three constitutional branches of government -- and that's exactly what it's doing now.
Citizens put a dagger into fair elections. Not to mention the giant waste of money (tv ads galore) Yup pretty soon a huge chunk of our media will be owned by one billionaire
Iran is definitely not a democracy. Autocratic theocracy—ruled by one man (now dead).
Gee, that sounds familiar—except for the last part.
So....does that make what we do okay? Or, are you just adding this for the sake of accuracy?
Accuracy. Also democracy in the US is on the decline.
That is truly a question with only opinions as answers.
Just for accuracy
Since when are "the American people" consulted about CIA operations or, for that matter, FBI operations or anything to do with the U.S. military? More to the point, though the specifics of CIA and Britain's MI6 involvement weren't acknowledged for many, many years, it wasn't exactly a secret that the U.S. was working overtime to cultivate First World allies in the Third World, and they didn't have independent leaders like Mossadegh in mind. Iran was crucial both for its oil and for its proximity to the Soviet Union.
Exactly…and the tragic irony is the Iranian people keep getting sold the same lie in different packaging.
….Overthrows democratically elected Mossadegh, installs Shah, Iranians eventually revolt against Western puppet.
1979: Revolution brings theocracy claiming independence from Western control.
2026: Trump bombs them promising “freedom” while Gulf monarchies who paid for the operation position their preferred client.
Each cycle, Iranians trade one form of oppression for another because the goal was never Iranian self-determination, it’s always been control of oil and regional dominance.
Now Reza Pahlavi (Shah’s son) is being positioned as “opposition leader” while Trump simultaneously bans VOA from mentioning him. The people stuck in the middle keep getting authoritarians serving foreign interests.
Joyce is right about the illegality, but here’s the behavioral reality:
Laws only constrain power when institutions enforce them. Venezuela proved executive war-making works without consequences. Iran confirms the pattern is operational. Congress learned from TV. Courts issue rulings that get defied within 24 hours.
The November NSS explicitly outlined this as doctrine: regional champions execute regime change, constitutional constraints get bypassed as standard procedure.
Trump isn’t violating norms…he’s operating within a framework plus corruption incentives designed to make violations routine.
Schumer calling for War Powers Resolution is performative unless Congress has enforcement mechanisms beyond symbolic votes.
The guardrails Joyce correctly identifies don’t just need defending, they need rebuilding because the ones we’re counting on already failed to prevent this.
The law matters. But when the machinery enabling illegal wars (NSS doctrine, Gulf state bribes purchasing policy, complicit institutions) faces zero accountability, citing UN Charter violations becomes documentation for future prosecution, not present constraint.
We’re past prevention.
We’re in aftermath analysis.
It’s a new world, norms and laws don’t constrain those that don’t give a…
—Johan
This has to play out.
Call it what it is: The Epstein War.
Johan,
I am so grateful that during my college years, I chose to make friends with persons from several different countries. One was from Iran.
He was a great friend, kind and a good person. We did not discuss religion or politics. We just shared a friendship.
When will we stop judging an entire population by its leader(s). I wish we would not be judged by the world according to the cruel and greedy character of Trump and his minions BUT here we are!!!! I do not "get" the attraction!!!! I pray our country can survive this hell, before we completely implode!!!!
People are individuals…what a government does never represents the entirety of its population. It’s simplicity and ignorance that causes us to conflate the two.
I have many friends from Iran. My barber is Iranian, just visited family there months ago. He’s Zoroastrian, a fascinating religion and culture that predates Islam in Persia by millennia.
Human beings are connected to culture, nationality, ethnicity—-but leaders of those things do not represent people as individuals. That’s especially true in authoritarian systems where populations have no say in policy.
Social media makes it too easy to push tribal grouping onto people. It’s disgusting and disturbing. Every human being deserves to be treated as an individual with the right to flourish.
What any leader does—whether United States, Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, wherever—is not representative of those people. The Iranian regime is brutal. So is bombing schools and killing 85 children in Minab. Neither represents the Iranian people who just want functioning governance, human rights, and to live without terror from their own government or foreign missiles.
Judge systems and leaders. Not populations trapped under them.
Thank you for saying this.
We will only begin to survive this current trajectory if we save our elections from interference from trump and those who want to eliminate being held accountable. This is not their playground, although that is what they wish in their insatiable quest for power. As citizens, we really are the last line of defense, since Congress and the SC are corrupt. It's up to us to protect our ability to change Congress and stop these criminals. That is what is at stake the midterm election.
I have worked with many Iranians over the years, they are lovely people and highly educated.
Indeed, we don’t, Patricia. History repeats itself over and over again.
How many times can country self destructive. Whats it called? National suicide?
americans are mostly idiots. we have no cobncept of the world outside football and country music
I'd like to think that doesn't apply to all of us, and not only because football and country music aren't among my faves.
no not all of us but it sure looks like most of us to me !
Maybe you need better friends and neighbors? Spend more time here.
Remember when Republicans called themselves "the party of law and order?"
Bless their greasy little hearts.
The British were in on it for the oil. Americans overthrew Iran's burgeoning democracy because they feared it could lead to communism--in an Islamic country! America has never been mature enough to wield its limitless power responsibly, especially under the GOP.
That was one of the world-class F**ck-ups in geo-politics.
“We never seem to learn”. Regime change in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia, to cite recent examples, all resulted in the rise of democracies in those countries. Didn’t it?
It’ll be different this time, right? Yippee we’re all going to war!
No "seem" is necessary in that sentence....
Hate to say it, but that’s on Eisenhower.
For an alleged tee-totaler, Trump sure is drunk on power and revenge … and Miller keeps filling the cup full. “Hey, it’s shame free!”
He's killing several "birds." Primary is to detract from Epstein.
Secondary is personal aggrandizement.
Also raises oil prices -- to benefit Putin's war machine. And this may be an excuse -- an "emergency" to invoke the "unitary executive".
"Every Hotsi Totsi Nazi stand up and cheer!"
"The GOP was having trouble; what a sad, sad story.
We needed a new leader to restore its former glory.
Where, oh where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around, and then we found the man for you and me!
And now it's
Springtime for DJT and The GOP!
MAGA is happy and gay
We're marching to a faster pace.
Look out! Here comes the master race!
Springtime for Leo and Charlie Koch!
Winter for the USA
Springtime for Thomas and Alito!
Come on SCOTUS! Go into your dance!
I was born in Kremlin land and that is why they call me Putin's fan.
Don't be stupid, be a smarty! Come and join the MAGA Party!
Springtime for Elon and Peter Thiel!
Goosestep, a new step, today!
Bombs falling from the skies again.
ChristoFascists are on the rise again!
Springtime for Jared and JD Vance!
U-boats are sailing once more!
Springtime for Hegseth and Rubio!
Means that
Soon we'll be going
We've got to be going
You know we'll be going
to war!"
With apologies to Songwriter Mel Brooks
Trump has all the “-ism’s” with out the alcohol.
TRUMP HAS BEEN KILLING PEOPLE IN IRAN AND ELSEWHERE IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The lifetime chairman of the Board of Peace, who castigated the Norwegian prime minister for Trump’s failure to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, aptly changed the Department of Defense to the Department of War.
At 92 (and a former Foreign Service Officer) I have witnessed instances when a president initiated war under phony circumstances. LBJ did this in Vietnam with the manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld lied that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction to get us into the disastrous Iraqi war.
Trump, acting like a self-appointed king, avoids such ‘niceties,’ as well as congressional approval. Murdering ‘fishermen’ in the Caribbean and the Pacific is clearly illegal. A ‘snatch and run’ in Venezuela that killed over 70 locals is imperially illegal.
In Iran Trump has established an even greater magnitude of illegality. As #45 he abruptly withdrew the US from a carefully constructed 6-power agreement that severely restricted Iran’s nuclear potential.
As #47 he bloviated about the lack of firm control of Iran’s nuclear activities and then sent B-2s to try to destroy underground nuclear operations. Then he had two realtors engage in ‘negotiations’ with Iran about nuclear and missile matters. These talks were scheduled for continuation when, last Saturday he and Netanyahu launched a devastating ongoing air and missile blitzkrieg against Iran.
At no time had Trump leveled with the American people or Congress. Leaked information about Iran being very close to making nuclear bombs and missiles capable of attacking the United States WAS TOTALLY FALSE.
In an eight minute speech on Saturday, he stated that the objective was ‘regime change.’ Huh?
‘King’ David is seeking to ‘run’ Venezuela and now, through carpet bombing, get rid of Iranian baddies and, miraculously, have goodies take over?
Like Joyce, I am not a war legal expert. However, in any international tribunal Trump would be convicted for his unilateral actions—with the Nuremberg Trials as a legal primer.
We need not be experts on the law of war to see that Trump is violating our Constitution and the principles of the American Revolution. Restraining the power to waste Americans' lives and tax dollars in foreign wars was one of the primary reasons for the American Revolution. Thomas Paine in Common Sense appealed to that very sentiment to explain to Americans why they must be willing to risk their lives fighting for their own liberty in a war at home. If they failed to fight for their own liberty, their lives would be wasted by a tyrant sending them to fight foreign wars:
"[T]he fate of war is uncertain." America should "never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support [wars] in either Asia, Africa, or Europe."
"Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because, it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free port.
[America's] trade will always be a protection."
The truth is that Trump is dangerously and obviously violating Article II (as much as Article I) of our Constitution. Article II, Section 3 explains how the President is required to support and interact with Congress regarding war (and tariffs):
The People commanded that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” If the president thinks war or tariffs are necessary and expedient, he must make the case to Congress. If he needs help making his case, “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”
In Article I, the People vested in Congress, alone, the power to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" and to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations."
Article II expressly limits all "executive Power" of the President to the following: “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and "faithfully execute the Office of President" to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's it. Nothing in our Constitution gave any president any power to start wars or other conflicts of his unilateral choosing.
Jack Jordan,
I wish for a President who read, studied and respected our Constitution, and laws of order and decency. I wish for a President who cared for the future of our children and who worked with states to improve education opportunities for all children including valuing those with disabilities. I dream of a President who would care for and respect the sacred lands that have been set apart to honor the creatures who live within those parks, the waters, the natural treasures/resources that are contained within these magnificent places. I wish that each and all Americans would open our eyes to the conditions of our American Indians who have served beside us in battles, but too often are forgotten. They were here first. They served as guides, they fed us through harsh winters when those from foreign countries came to what they saw as "their land", "their home".
What is it with us "white folk"? Are we so insecure around black and brown persons that we must kill them and their beautiful, brilliant, creative ways of life, of music, of artistic brilliance, of poetry of understanding nature and its healing power, their athletic gifts of amazing power and strength and coordination....gifts we can NEVER duplicate...even when we try.
Some would rather call them "savages", I say no less than we are, if you want to point out the darkness within each of us.
Returning to "great leaders" most recognize that all of mankind has its dark side. It is those humble and great ones who recognize this within and fight against it in order to put goodness first. Those men and women push back against evil; they fight against it because they know that evil power self destroys and harms the lives of those near us as well as those far away.
The person sitting in the seat of President of the USA, is dishonoring all the best we have dreamed of becoming. He is a "dark guide" for our country and its inhabitants.
Though he has never served within our armed forces, he sends the sons and daughters of our country who have pledged to lay down their lives for this country to kill innocent persons of another country rather than work hard to develop healthy, workable relationships with its leaders.
As our great nation plunges into disarray, how long are we going to be silent?
My husband and I have participated in respectful marches...non violent, displaying our opinions as fellow Americans standing with us do the same. We will continue because we love this country. We love "red and yellow black and white" fellow Americans who have given themselves responsibly as citizens. We are together, protesting for the wellbeing of our nation and for one another.
Many people who are speaking out to support Trump or support his attacks on Iran (last year and this year) or on Venezuela (in the capital or in the ocean) are quibbling over the meaning of "war." Many also like to highlight that many times the U.S. has waged war without a "declaration of war" by Congress.
They're committing at least three obvious and egregious mistakes: (1) trying to read our Constitution by relying on a mere dictionary, (2) ignoring other relevant parts of our Constitution and (3) ignoring the principles and purposes of the text, e.g., re: separation of powers.
The most relevant powers that were enumerated in Article I as being vested exclusively in Congress include the power to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations" and to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
The powers of Congress also include authorizing executive action that is necessary and proper in relation to the enumerated powers (and prohibiting executive action that isn't necessary or isn't proper). That's why Article I expressly emphasizes that “Congress shall have Power” to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [all] Powers [of Congress], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including the executive and judicial branches).
So the meaning or existence of mere "war" or a mere "declaration of war" is barely, if at all, relevant. The primary principle at work is the separation of powers for the purpose of preserving our liberties.
In Article I, the People vested in Congress the foregoing "legislative Powers." In Article II the People vested in the President only the "executive Power." Our Constitution clarified that, generally, "executive Power" means only the power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and to "faithfully execute the Office of President," i.e., to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Regarding the particular powers of Congress at issue here, "executive Power" means merely the power to "be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
When the President exercises "executive Power" as the "Commander in Chief" to attack another nation, he's obviously and necessarily almost always required to act under express authorization by Congress. An exception applies to the President to the same extent as it applied to state governors (especially in the first decades after the Constitution was written and ratified). Article I, Section 10 clarified that a "State" may "without the Consent of Congress" unilaterally "engage in War" if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Justice Scalia, in his (famous) dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson in 1988, emphasized "that we have 'a government of laws and not of men.'" He emphasized that "[t]he Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison [emphasized] that “[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.” As Justice Scalia emphasized, "Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless."
Madison in Federalist No. 47 (quoting Montesquieu in The Spirt of the Laws in 1754) emphasized the reason for the rule (separation of powers):
"There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner."
Trump and his supporters are highlighting the self-evident truth that Montesquieu, Madison and Scalia highlighted: Trump and his supporters, ultimately, are attacking and undermining our Constitution by supporting tyranny and the president's unconstitutional usurpation of powers that the People reserved to Congress to secure our liberty and keep us safe from tyrants.
From a protest sign in Boise ID: He started a war with a war criminal so that you forget he RAPES KIDS!
Ruben Gallego, a Democratic senator for Arizona and Iraq war veteran, responded on social media: “Draft dodger is willing to sacrifice working-class kids. How charitable of him.”
Dr Timothy Snyder has some historically influenced theories on why the Fascist Cuntalope attacked Iran:
https://snyder.substack.com/p/why-attack-iran
Jason, I think there is a reasonable tolerance here of name-calling, particularly against the obvious miscreants, but I think the word you have chosen here is a little beyond the pale. Regardless of the image you are trying to engender (righteous or not), you are using a HIGHLY offensive word to almost everyone and I think you should "redact" it from your comments. That's my opinion, of course, but I ask respectfully in recognition of the feelings of not only myself but others as well.
Jon - I wish I could take credit for this latest addition to my collection of names that illuminate traits of the Orange Anus; but, this one was created by TheJuiceMedia in their latest Honest Government Ad:
https://youtu.be/zhokI1flaX0
You might want to check out this other one they did about our 2024 election:
https://youtu.be/zhokI1flaX0
And this one about SCOTUS:
https://youtu.be/jL5LaLT2BJM
But, BE WARNED, I you are offended by words like fuck, SCROTUS or pussy; DO NOT click on those links!
If anyone out there is not ready to fully embrace free speech, you are NOT ready for the coming battle. TheJuiceMedia is reaching people much younger than what I guess is the average age of readers of Civil Discourse.
I am rarely offended by language, even coarse language. NONE of the words you used in this post offend me or would prompt a comment similar to the one I sent earlier. The c-word used in that post one of the few words that I find offensive and less because of myself than because I think it ostracizes way too many women for obvious reasons. It is a word that represents male oppression and like the n-word, it typically has a power imbalance. Women will use it (particularly comediennes) as a way of retaining their own power, but that is NOT afforded to men (just as the n-word is typically not afforded to white people).
It is your right to ignore what I say but I am just letting you know that for me, it demeans you to do that. Your choice and you can of course insist that I am an idiot, but I am not and your refusal to consider my request suggests the opposite.
Seriously? Profanity is the banner you march under and you equate it with a defense of the constitutional rule of law? FYI - free speech protections actually refer to protecting us from government suppression.
In this time and place your indulgence/revelry in name calling is a trivialization of a grave situation. It is an indulgence which may amuse you. It is hardly an effective response to this moment.
Freud and others are on to something in suggesting that name calling is 'the lowest form of verbal joke because it requires the least amount of intellectual effort, or technique, to create. And the cheapest because it depends on wordplay rather than a more complex, structured joke, making the smallest demand on technical expression.' I'll take Spike Jones, Mel Brooks, and Jon Stewart for comic relief
some are clever...David called orangeass king donald the only
(hope you don't mind David)
I had the same reaction, Jon Rosen. That is a terrible word, even tho it may be acceptable in the UK, or somewhere else.
I say this as a woman, and I say this as a person within a broad conversation.
If anyone comes up short in creative, effective derogatory words and phrases for Felon (my only word for that nasty, illiterate, selfish, violent murderer), we could create a repository of effective, funny, on-point, stinging, accurate descriptors.
Now, why undercut a good reference to Timothy Snyder's good work - by indulging in trivializing name calling?
So why is he willing to involve us in Iran’s affairs and still unwilling to help our ally, Ukraine? Makes no sense whatever.
He is unwilling to help Ukraine because he is subservient to Putin.
He is willing to involve us in Iran's affairs because he is subservient to Netanyahu.
Is anyone else asking why, after two parties passed laws obligating Americans to obey loyalty oaths to the Zionist Israeli government in 38 states but have passed none to date obligating American citizens to obey loyalty oaths to the authoritarian Russian government, it is invariably the latter that gets first mention as interfering in American elections and American governance? That is true in mainstream corporate media and in several Substack blogs that I subscribe to.
Is there possibly an affliction among American political writers called "Israeli Avoidance Syndrome?"
Let me respond to this comment. There is a HUGE difference between Israel which has been an ally of the United States for its entire existence regardless of its leadership which has varied, and Russia nee the Soviet Union which has been at best a highly variable political entity for over 100 years since the communist revolution, and has only rarely had its interests in alignment with the US. In addition, Israel is a tiny country of 10 million people compared to Russia which has 15 times as many people and a land area that is about 80,000 square miles contrasted with Russia which is over 6 million square miles (the physically largest single country on earth).
Your question is also highly misleading. The laws passed in support of Israel do not require Americans to pledge any kind of loyalty to Israel. The laws you are referring to (I think) are laws intended to commit American businesses and states to opposing sanctions imposed on Israel due to their current government. That is in no way requiring US citizens to pledge loyalty to Israel and to suggest so is simply in error and wrong. Personally I do not support those laws and I believe Netanyahu should be held accountable for his actions and ditto Trump, but I recognize that political realities in the world will probably prevent that from happening, at least not any time soon.
Your comment feels highly anti-semitic to me and regardless of my feelings towards Netanyahu's wrong-headed government, I also feel highly supportive of Israel's right to exist without the hindrance and attacks on it by surrounding right-wing Arab governments. Neither side gets much of my support in this latest Trump/Netanyahu debacle but that does not mean I support the Iranian regime any more either.
My question about why political journalists cannot address the influence of Israel and governance is "misleading" only if someone is trying to shame the person who asked it into silence. Particularly, trying to so by labeling them as "anti-semitic" as you just did truly discloses what you are trying to do.
We can boycott and organize boycotts in the USA against American corporations under the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights. Why are we passing special legislation to try to silence American citizens for any other nation's corporations?
Fortunately, AI can provide some discussion without fear of attempts by those working on behalf of a foreign government trying to intimidate. I just did a short query. Readers, try it yourselves.
"1. State-Level Legislation
A total of 38 states have enacted laws or executive orders designed to discourage or
generally take two forms:
• Contract-Focused Laws: Prohibiting state agencies from contracting with individuals or companies that boycott Israel.
• Investment-Focused Laws: Requiring state pension and investment funds to divest from companies participating in BDS.
Recent Developments (2024–2026):
Alaska
(Feb 2024): Governor Mike Dunleavy issued an administrative order requiring state contracts to include a clause against boycotting Israel.
Florida
(July 2025): Expanded its existing law to specifically target academic boycotts of Israel.
Utah
(Jan 2026): Amended its law to include a broader "anti-boycott" framework, prohibiting the state from contracting with companies that boycott not only Israel but also the fossil fuel, timber, and firearms industries.
2. Federal Legislation and Executive Action
While no comprehensive federal anti-BDS law has been enacted, several targeted bills have moved through Congress:
• H.R. 3050 (Countering Hate Against Israel by Federal Contractors Act): Introduced in April 2025, this bill seeks to prohibit federal agencies from contracting with companies engaged in a boycott of Israel.
• IGO Anti-Boycott Act (H.R. 867): Reintroduced in January 2025, this bill aims to penalize U.S. persons or entities that participate in boycotts imposed by international organizations like the United Nations.
• Executive Action: Following his reelection, President Donald Trump restored a 2019 executive order in early 2025 that targets the boycott movement, particularly in the context of federal funding for universities.
3. Judicial Challenges
The constitutionality of these laws remains a subject of intense litigation:
• Mixed Rulings: Federal courts in Arizona, Kansas, Texas, and Georgia have previously struck down or blocked anti-BDS laws for violating First Amendment rights.
• Eighth Circuit Ruling: In a major 2022 decision (affirmed by the Supreme Court’s refusal to review in 2023), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Arkansas's anti-BDS law was constitutional, arguing that it regulates "purely commercial purposes" rather than protected speech.
• Legislative Adjustments: In response to court losses, several states (like Georgia and Texas) have amended their laws to only apply to larger contracts (e.g., over $100,000) or companies with more than 10 employees to avoid infringing on the rights of individual contractors."
Looks like there is a lot to discuss here about influence on governance of American citizens, particularly on the day many of us woke to an illegal war both domestically and internationally that we waged jointly with the one country who has lobbied America for doing that for decades.
Your language in your post communicates solidarity with Netanyahu's April 24, 2024, video address calling peaceful campus protests against ethnic cleansing developed in 45 of our 50 states, 97% of which were peaceful, “Antisemitic mobs” and coined the “Pro-Palestinian" label, and demanded militant crackdowns to end U.S. protests. Mainstream media adopted those terms immediately, as did Joe Biden when he addressed the nation.
Were they "mobs?" Were the studies finding the main reason Democrats lost votes was responding to those in power at that time calling their constituents "anti-semitic" who were resisting advocacy that they support apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. and being encouraged NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT?
Now, we have wholesale attacks on our First Amendment like these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlHuAtHdjQY and militant attacks against protests by a government who created an occupying force larger than most nations' armies.
You just tried to intimidate me into silence, but I am going to respond by encouraging talking about this more. I intend to encourage it every day.
You can be an ass without actually braying. I responded to your obviously ignorant comment. I did not in any way attempt to "silence" you, and your non-intuitive leap to that conclusion just confirms my suspicions.
I did not call you anti-semitic, I simply said that your comment FELT that way to me, especially as I am Jewish and I tend to be sensitive about such things - your refusal to be aware of other people's sensitivities, or worse to care about them doesn't put you in a good light although I expect that matters little to you if at all.
If you aren't willing to listen to others, and you only care to insist on your own right of "free speech", then you simply confirm my suspicions. Free speech may PERMIT you to make such comments, but that doesn't mean you must do it.
You certainly have the right to be an ass, but I have the equivalent right to call you out on it as I have.
Have a nice day.
Rosen- you're arguing with a self professed anti semite.
I think this is a good place for me to confess that I have no idea how to state my disgust and disrespect for "Bebe" without treading on the "hate Israel" beartrap. For me, he was truly the worse person I could consider within the top drawer of "World Leaders". He is no leader, but he is all things terrible.
However, 01/20/2025 launched the worse thing I could imagine, (and I actually did imagine) - trump and his lowlife cabal. He is worse than Netanyahu, IMO, because he has no bottom to fall onto. He just keeps going darker and darker into his treatment of us, and our World partners.
I’m no fan of Bibi but I’ve read in several sources that the Saudis were pushing heavily for the attack in private communications with White House. Don’t mistake my meaning. Israel was absolutely a key player in the attack, as the presence of their military clearly shows, but they weren’t the only player there. The attacks on Iran will not end well for anyone.
"The attacks on Iran will not end well for anyone."
Re: Oil. They may end well for Putin. Who Trump has dealings with.
Re: Hobbling Iran, they may end well for the Arab nations who have resented non- Arab Iran's dominance. And have been filling Trump, Kushner, and Witkoff's pockets
See https://www.levernews.com/the-dark-money-operatives-pushing-for-regime-change-in-iran/ There are a lot of unsavory characters on the same page as the Trump-MAGA/"Christian" agenda as the Netanyahu-Zionist/"Jewish" agenda sparing no effort to conflate legitimate religious belief with their narcissistic authoritarian political agenda. It's easy to spot their acolytes here trying to label people "anti-semites" who note the hypocrisy.
This international ruling class has strong ties to the Epstein class. Suggest visiting https://www.dropsitenews.com/s/epstein-and-israel for a great investigative series. They have never failed a fact check. Jon and Daniel don't want us reading their reporting either.
The genocidal Netanyahu regime is in the spotlight. But not the 'prime mover' of Trump's overdetermined impulse to attack Iran.
In the Bush years, John Bolton and others urged Israel to prove its loyalty to the USA by bombing Iran. In his first term, Trump fired Bolton for pushing to bomb Iran. What has changed? Trump, Kushner, and Witkoff have taken huge sums of money - and are looking for more - from Arab nations who have long resented the dominance of (non- Arab) Iran. This, as intelligence experts Malcolm Nance and Jacob Kaarsbo have emphasized, is also about who controls Islam. (See link below.)
Who benefits from the rise in oil prices by Trump sidelining Iran (and Venezuela)? Putin.
The largest supporter of the Netanyahu regime is CUFI (Christians United For Israel.)
10 million strong, growing, and essential to the Republican regime and to Trump in particular. In their belief, when all Jews are 'in gathered' to Israel, Christ will return, and Jews will be converted or condemned to purgatory.
"Anti-Semitic Zionists
Among Evangelical groups in the USA, Christian Zionists have a special relation to the state of Israel. As important Trump constituents, they have a huge influence on his foreign policy and are increasingly crowding out Jewish interest groups. Their ideology is inherently anti-Semitic, but they tend to hide this fact.
Among Trump supporters, Christian Zionists are especially strong, whereas Jewish voters tend to oppose him.
Christian Zionism is a belief held by many Evangelicals, who number one quarter of the US Christian population, but adhere to a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. Christian Zionists believe that Israel must gather all the Jews of the world, enlarge its territory, destroy Muslim holy places, and ethnically cleanse “the holy land” of all non-Jews. Many assume that this must be done to facilitate the return of Christ. Evangelicals of this kind support Israel, but not Judaism. In their worldview, Jews play a merely instrumental role. The implicit subtext is that Jews do not belong in American communities, because good Jews move to Israel. Their ideology is tinged with anti-Semitism, and it fits the picture that Trump himself has a pattern of using anti-Semitic memes (see essay by Benjamin Baltheser in D+C/E+Z e-Paper 2019/10, Focus section).
These things, however, are only rarely expressed explicitly. "
.https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/how-evangelicals-have-usurped-jewish-americans-support-israel.
THE US IRAN WAR IS ON
A recording from Jacob Kaarsbo and Black Man Spy - Malcolm Nance's live video
Jacob Kaarsbo
.https://jacobkaarsbo.substack.com/p/the-us-iran-war-is-on?publication_id=5530472&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=dvsxz&utm_medium=email.
Black Man Spy - Malcolm Nance
.https://malcolmnance.substack.com/s/black-man-spy.
You obviously read more than the sites written by investigators afflicted by Israeli Avoidance Syndrome in reporting. Thanks for the cited sources.
"These things" are "rarely expressed explicitly" for the same reason that women and children in the homes of domestic abusers bear their abuse in silence. Their abusers spare no effort to intimidate them with fear from talking about it because they know there is no faster way to end abuse than to shine light on it and discuss it openly to replace the shame with the feelings of support that come from acceptance of being heard.
Here, the abusers try to intimidate with personal attacks and labels. They will do so both overtly and through passive-aggressive attempts to do same while pretending they aren't doing what they are really doing. Expect a rage reaction when calling them out on it.
"These things" are "rarely expressed explicitly" for the same reason that women and children in the homes of domestic abusers bear their abuse in silence. "
No. CUFI Evangelicals don't mention their end goal because it would not be strategic to their alliance with AIPAC. Jews affiliated with AIPAC don't mention it because CUFI is essential to keeping Republican officials aligned with their shared agenda.
The governments in the region that are aligned against Iran have given or invested at least hundreds of millions of dollars in Trump family enterprises. The war is the pro quo for these personal benefits to Trump.
That theory has a lot of evidence supporting it. If there is a more plausible one, I have yet to hear it.
He's been an agent of Russia for many years. He opened the doors for Putin several times...
https://michaeldsellers.substack.com/?utm_campaign=pub&utm_medium=web
Thanks for the site reference.
It does make a kind of sense if you remember him stating he want s the same thing g that's wants from He e
MAFA. Maga real initials. Make America FAscist.
Despite all the euphoria about Khameini's killing, to me it looks like state-sponsored murder under the cover of a self-declared war, which could have much larger consequences (i can hear the Iranian rockets being intercepted whilst writing this). Make Assinations Great Again.... who is next, America?
you answered it is america ! trump is making a pretty good job of it
Thin ice indeed… but who’s gonna stop them, quickly?
Not little M. Johnson and his bunch of yes-man and yes-women.
Not little miss Lindsey G.
Not Roberts' "not-so-supreme" gang.
Thank you, Professor, Stephen Miller is a bit of case information! I am glad that you understand the law and logic behind this war. My father’s told yes , they had to kill men during WW2, towards the end of their lives they had regretted doing this. I’m sad for America. Most of all it should have been done in a legal manner by speaking to the congress and senate about the war powers act!
In my limited opinion, what this is really about is pressure from Saudi Arabia, who has been locked in with Iran regarding oil rights, etc., as well as Israel's long-term mutual animosity towards Iran. The Saudis have attacked our homeland or properties overseas repeatedly, but have never truly been held accountable due to their oil power and resultant wealth related to several of our presidents. I have absolutely no doubt at all that Prince Muhammed convinced Jared and Trump that they would be given huge amounts of money if they cooperated with Israel to attack Iran. In no way am I saying that Iran has been a "positive" influence in the region. They have shown their cruelty to their own people, especially their women, as well as other Middle Eastern countries, and have turned their ancient country into a Muslim nationalistic state. But no one should ever think that Trump would enter into such a conflagration with a known enemy who would not hesitate to attack us, if possible, unless he was making huge cash from the deal. And as usual, the Saudis look innocent. This will only end badly. And, of course, where is Congress? At the bar I guess, choking down martinis and bitching about those in the WH when they totally negate their Constitutional responsibilities.
They / we bombed a girls' elementary school, with many deaths and casualties. How's that supposed to win hearts?
And surely with these lethal and sophisticated weapons they could have avoided the school. When I think of all the children who have been harmed in Gaza, Iran and by ICE it absolutely breaks my heart.
Thank you for your continuous work in explaining the guardrails to us. (And I'm happy to be a paid subscribers.) Here's my question: even if Congress returns to admonish Trump, what will he do about it, since he's not following laws, and breaking them seem to result in zero consequences? I believe in the rule of law, I'd just like to see accountability. Can the international laws, or the countries that enforce them, do anything here? Can they also release whatever they have in the Epstein files?
If regime change is really what this misbegotten effort is supposedly all about, you don't make things worse for the population you want to rally around your preferred new government. You start covertly and build support. The last thing to do is make a performative show of force and then say okay, it's now all up to you folks. Good luck. Little doubt that succession for the 86-year-old Khamenei and his lieutenants has been in place for years. And now there's word that his successor is likely to be as much or more (if that's possible...) of a hardliner.
And, in the grown-up World, if we blew away $$$ millions in ammunition and participated in "regime change", for no true, immediate reason....
The US has no true, Global reason to attack anyone or any place.
However, the Madmen in our White House, trump, stevie and heggie don't care. They appear to not even understand the immensity of their actions, including taking our ships and other fire power away from truly necessary locations on Earth for no publically-stated reason.
They were stopped from invading Greenland, maybe even Canada, and likely Panama, but they had the means to shuffle around our Military assets until they settled on a Country where much of the US would either not care, or not understand the great criminality of those actions.
King Donald the Only: “Looketh away, varlet! Iran a-fright me; girlies delight me; all others, I smite thee. (Do these trousers make me look fat?)”
I'm sorry that I LOL'd at that. But I did.
Prick the bloat — bullies hate that.
Enjoyed the giggle you provided
My pleasure …
Somewhat off-topic, but let us not forget that Jarjar Kushner, who could never have gotten a security clearance even to lick a postage stamp except for his father-in-law's arm-twisting, is getting several million dollars a year from the Saudis to look out for THEIR interests, is Benedict Donald's chief and primary "negotiator" with Vladimir Putin, Bibi Netanyahu, Arab oil sheikhs, and others purportedly on America's behalf but most assuredly on Degenerate Don's.
Yup. On topic actually.
Like saying murderer is legally on thin ice. Tariffs were illegal so he extended them for 5 months and court allowed them for months despite court rulings saying they were illegal. Plus innocent Americans being murdered and called terrorists. Plus torture. Im no expert but seems like the constitution has been shredded.
Just a point about your tariff comment. The tariffs were permitted to stay in effect while being litigated at the Appeals Court and Supreme Court level by Supreme Court order. Whether that was a good decision will become clearer in the coming months.
Once the Supreme Court struck down the illegal tariffs, the US suspended them. The tariffs that remain in effect are NOT the ones struck down by SCOTUS. What was struck down were the highly variable tariffs that were targeted at specific countries. There are other laws (that were NOT struck down) that permit even tariffs across the board that remain in effect and that is what Trump did after his tariff approach was ruled illegal.
Trump is frustrated by this because his whole purpose was to try to impose severe tariff penalties on countries he disliked or was in disputes with (like Canada) while giving favored nation status tariffs to countries he likes or who have paid him off. The current SCOTUS decision makes that difficult or impossible for him to achieve. Whether he will come up with another way to re-impose variable tariffs also remains to be seen, but for now, it has not yet happened.
Also the tariffs he "extended" for 5 months were specifically limited to that period by the laws that authorize them. Those laws have NOT been struck down by the Supreme Court and Trump is using them to try to do some of what he was doing before but it is a lot more difficult for him now. Sorry that the details are so complicated but no one ever said American policies would be simple and easy :-)
Did the Iran thing distract you?