The images emerging from the Middle East tell only part of the story. Behind the footage of airstrikes and missile defenses being repositioned lies a deeper, more consequential shift in the global order.

The United States, long the undisputed architect of international security, is revealing a fragility that the world has never witnessed before. The decision to relocate THAAD batteries and Patriot missile systems from South Korea to the Middle East has sent shockwaves through diplomatic corridors from Seoul to Brussels. While seemingly benign, it exposes one important thing: American military resources are not infinite, and when the pressure mounts, some allies will be left exposed.

The Shield Is Gone

The strikes on American air defense systems represent more than tactical losses. They constitute a strategic shock that the Pentagon has struggled to explain to the American people. In less than two weeks since the war began, America has taken considerable equipment loss and depletion to a seemingly much weaker nation.

Multiple AN/TPY-2 antenna’s have been damaged throughout the gulf region including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and Abu Dhabi. The gulf countries also announced that they only have a few days of interceptors left if the pace of attacks keeps up. This has sent CENTCOM into a panic as they divert and race to the finish line to take out as many of Iran’s launchers as possible.

As munitions specialist N.R. Jenzen-Jones of Armament Research Services told CNN: “The AN-TPY/2 radar is essentially the heart of the THAAD battery, enabling the launch of interceptor missiles and contributing to a networked air defense picture.”

This will inevitably empower many of the superpowers around the world to be more bold with their actions in the geopolitical scene, as the US is proving to be more of a paper tiger than previously believed. On top of that, nations such as China are using this as the perfect opportunity to monitor and understand how the US military performs strategically in a real war scenario.

The Alliance Question

For decades, the presence of American forces on the Korean Peninsula has served as the cornerstone of Seoul’s security architecture and security in the Indo-Pacific region. As the THAAD defense systems are moved from Seongju and the Patriot batteries from Osan Air Base, this will start to make many of our allies around the world question how much protection the US security umbrella is really providing them. A war with a seemingly much weaker opponent has already got America scrambling to produce more, and concentrate resources.

The details, reported by outlets including the Chosun Ilbo and Korea Times show US military transport aircraft, including C-17 and C-5 cargo planes, spotted at Osan Air Base. Reports citing government sources indicated that several Patriot missile defense launchers and interceptors had been moved from other American bases in the country to Osan..

As reports confirm that Washington and Seoul have discussed redirecting USFK assets to the Iran war, the message to Pyongyang is unmistakable. North Korea, watching closely, sees an opportunity. The strategic flexibility that the US has long touted as a strength is now being interpreted as a weakness. When American air defenses are needed in one theater, they must be stripped from another. The deterrent, it turns out, has limits.

The same anxiety ripples across Europe. NATO allies who have grown accustomed to American security leadership are beginning to recalibrate. If the United States can withdraw defensive systems from a key Indo-Pacific partner to fight a war in the Middle East, what happens when Europe faces its own crisis? The unspoken question hangs in the air: Are we next?

Subscribe now

Iran Changes the Calculus

Perhaps the most profound implication of this conflict is what it has revealed about American military supremacy. For years, the assumption that the US military was an unstoppable force shaped strategic calculations worldwide. Nations that considered challenging Washington knew the consequences would be swift and devastating.

Iran has shattered that assumption.

Despite massive airstrikes and the deployment of advanced interceptor systems, Tehran has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to absorb punishment and continue operations. The Islamic Republic’s ability to sustain its defense, even as US munitions stocks are depleted, sends a chilling message to other potential adversaries.

According to defense analysts, the United States expended between 20 and 50 percent of its available THAAD interceptors during the initial phases of the 2025 conflict. Production rates for advanced interceptors remain vastly outpaced by Iranian ballistic missile manufacturing. Each THAAD missile costs more than $12.8 million, and American defense contractors produce only 96 a year. The Trump administration has allocated funds to increase their production to 400 a year, but this could take up to seven years.

This shows also shows adversaries the strategy to deal with America. It is less about the technology, and more about being able to out produce and out maneuver the United States through circumvention of their technology, something China exceedingly is good at. Produce it cheaply, produce it fast, and hide it the best you can.

The New Strategic Landscape

The United States seeks controlled brinkmanship, pushing for negotiated settlements while avoiding open-ended commitments. Israel pursues structural destabilization, seeking to fundamentally alter the conflict’s framework. Iran forces a war of attrition, betting on endurance over escalation. The Gulf states fight to preserve economic continuity.

These strategic logics collide on the same battlefield, creating instability precisely because each actor believes it is acting rationally. The danger lies not in miscalculation but in the convergence of rational strategies that produce irrational outcomes.

For China, Russia, and North Korea, the lesson is clear: American commitments are contingent on American priorities. When those priorities shift, allies are left to fend for themselves. This has been never more clear for the gulf countries who aligned themselves with the US in hopes of a security defense structure.

The one thing the Iran war has done is changed the strategic landscape of the world. The shield that kept the peace is showing cracks, and we are entering into a new era.

European Council President Antonio Costa put it bluntly: “So far, there is only one winner in this war – Russia.” He noted that Moscow gains new resources to finance its war against Ukraine as energy prices rise, profits from the diversion of military capabilities that could otherwise have been sent to support Ukraine, and benefits from reduced attention to the Ukrainian front as the conflict in the Middle East takes centre stage.

Between February 28, when the US and Israel started the Iran War, and March 10, oil prices jumped as much as 64 percent—from approximately $72.48 per barrel to a peak of $119.50 per barrel.

A World on Edge

We are living through a fundamental reordering of international relations. The post-Cold War era, characterized by American unipolarity and the steady expansion of Western influence, is giving way to something more chaotic and uncertain.

The rules that governed state behavior for decades are being rewritten in real time.

The implications extend far beyond the battlefield. Global supply chains, already strained by regional conflicts, face new disruptions. Energy markets react to every escalation. Diplomatic channels, strained by mistrust, struggle to contain the spillover. The world economy, still recovering from pandemic-era shocks, confronts a new era of instability.

And yet, for all the uncertainty, one thing is becoming clear: the era of American hegemony is coming to an end, through its own actions.

The military that was supposed to guarantee security everywhere can now secure nowhere.

The alliances that were supposed to be ironclad reveal their seams under pressure.

The power that was supposed to be unlimited confronts its boundaries.

The Edge of War

The Iran war is not World War III. But it may well be the conflict that makes World War III thinkable.

When the dominant power’s credibility is questioned, when adversaries discover that resistance is possible, when allies begin to doubt commitments, the conditions for larger conflict are established.

History does not always repeat itself. But it often rhymes.

The 1930s taught us that global instability emboldens aggressors, that alliances can fracture under pressure, and that the failure of deterrence can cascade into catastrophe. The lessons were learned once. They may need to be learned again.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has already issued distress warnings that a long Iran war could leave Ukraine defenseless. “Everyone understands that a long war, if it is long, and the intensity of hostilities will affect the number of air defenses for us,” he told reporters.

What happens next depends on choices not just in Washington and Tehran, but in Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang, and dozens of capitals around the world.

The old order is dying. What replaces it is not yet clear.

But one thing is certain: the world is more dangerous today than it was a year ago, and the trajectory points toward more peril ahead.

The question is no longer whether the world order is changing. The question is whether it can be changed without descending into the abyss, without the suffering of millions.

“The first casualty of war is the truth” — Aeschylus

Those words once again ring in my head on the eve of the 13th day of our war of choice with Iran.

Today, I woke up to ABC News’ reporting that the FBI has warned police departments in California that Iran wants to retaliate for American attacks by launching offensive drones against the West Coast. Naturally I was skeptical of this news, but before I could even think about the notion of Iran having even the remotest possibility of being able to attack from 8,000 miles away, my feed started blowing up with hundreds of reposts. Outlandish TikToks of how it was something that was about to happen. Even Gavin Newsom was out there making videos about how they are ready.

Of course, this was all but a few hours before CBS News reported that there was no credible intelligence underpinning the bulletin distributed on the unverified possibility that Iran could retaliate for American attacks by launching drones at the West Coast.

But of course as is the case with most things, the news spreads wider than the correction.

The answer to why the news was out there in the first place was more than clear to me. It’s the same thing that happened with the anthrax scare during the Iraq war.

The Anthrax Scare

In October 2001, just weeks after the 9/11 attacks, letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news offices and two U.S. senators. The incidents killed five people and infected 17 others. Almost immediately, the Bush administration and its media allies seized on the attacks as proof of the existential threat posed by Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the anthrax mailings. The narrative was simple: the enemy is everywhere, they can reach into our homes, and we must act now.

The fear was amplified across every major network. Senators appeared on cable news to warn of “mushroom clouds.” Reporters repeated talking points about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction without skepticism. The anthrax attacks — which remain unsolved to this day, with the FBI’s primary suspect apparently dying by suicide in 2008 — served as the perfect cultural lever to pry open public support for an invasion that would ultimately kill hundreds of thousands of people based on fabrications.

The playbook hasn’t changed. Replace anthrax with drones. Replace “saddam has WMDs” with “Iran is rebuilding its nuclear program.” The script is identical. What has changed is that we’ve seen this movie before, and more people are waking up to it.

The Unpopularity Problem

This matters now more than ever because this war is deeply unpopular. According to polling from New York Times, support for the Iran strikes ranges from just 27 percent in a Reuters/Ipsos poll to 50 percent in a Fox News poll. Even the highest level of support falls far below what we’ve seen at the beginnings of previous conflicts. When George W. Bush put troops on the ground in Afghanistan, 92 percent of Americans supported the move. As unpopular as the Iraq War ultimately became, 76 percent of Americans approved of the decision to go to war in a poll taken the day after the conflict began. We are nowhere near those numbers, and the administration knows it.

When at war, the job of the country is to manufacture consent among the population. This is especially important for America as their military actions around the world often do not lead to consequences to its own people. So the onus becomes on the government to create enough support to continue its endeavors. But this time, it’s not working the way it used to.

Why It’s Failing (For Now)

More than ever it has become obvious for two main reasons.

One, this administration’s incompetence. Because of the chaotic nature of the Trump regime, we see into what happens behind the curtains a lot more. Very clearly, they are trying to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. The news from this morning is just the latest example. We’ve seen senators and congressmen spreading rumors of so-called sleeper cells with no proof or evidence, fear-mongering about Iran having nukes, and other unsubstantiated news.

Second, due to both the admin and Israel’s unpopularity, people in the country have become especially skeptical of these kinds of propaganda efforts. The American people have seen over the past two years many narrative propaganda attempts both in Gaza, and even at home when it comes to things like Epstein and ICE protests.

Why Attrition Wins

Ultimately, despite the government’s current best efforts not working, it seems that time and time again agitprop and repetitive attempts always win out in the end. Create enough restlessness and worry, and people will soon come to accept it. As we drag into our third week in this war, it starts to slowly become a fact of life.

But what I fear most, and what seems to be the thing the Iranian diaspora fail to comprehend, is that even these obvious attempts at fear-mongering slowly but surely create resentment and fear towards ordinary Iranian Americans here. As the US gets more desperate and weaker both in its global hegemonic power and its domestic, expect to see even more attempts to convince people and bring Americans on board with this war, with potentially even higher stakes. Every day, the stakes and conflict seems to be expanding and growing, and I fear the worst is yet to come. The war machine runs on fear. The question is whether we’re still willing to feed it, or if it will win once again.

دیروز، رهبر جمهوری اسلامی، علی خامنه‌ای، در یک حمله موسوم به «قطع سر» کشته شد. او برای بسیاری نمادی از شرارت و خشونت این رژیم بود. اغلب به‌عنوان قطعه‌ای از پازل که همه‌چیز را کنار هم نگه می‌داشت دیده می‌شد. اکنون که او دیگر نیست، چه اتفاقی می‌افتد؟

برخلاف باور رایج، پس از کشته شدن خامنه‌ای در حملات اولیه آمریکا و اسرائیل، رژیم ایران فرو نپاشید. آنچه مشاهده شد دقیقاً برعکس بود. واکنشی سریع از سوی دولت ایران که چندین کشور منطقه از جمله قطر، بحرین، امارات متحده عربی، اسرائیل و دیگران را هدف قرار داد. در واقع، پاسخ‌ها به‌نظر می‌رسد تا حد زیادی تحت تأثیر کشته شدن خامنه‌ای قرار نگرفته باشد. برای هر کسی که توجه می‌کرد، روشن بود که مرگ مردی ۸۶ ساله که پیشاپیش در بستر بیماری بود، قرار نبود تغییر بزرگی ایجاد کند. در حالی که بخشی از ایرانیان خارج از کشور به خیابان‌ها آمدند و جشن گرفتند، بسیاری آینده هولناکی را که ممکن است در انتظار مردم داخل ایران باشد در نظر نمی‌گیرند. در این مقاله، برخی از محتمل‌ترین سناریوها بررسی می‌شود؛ و صادقانه باید گفت که هیچ‌یک چشم‌انداز مطلوبی ندارند.

سپاه پاسداران در قدرت می‌ماند

نخستین سناریوی محتمل آن است که سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی کنترل امور را در داخل ایران تا زمان انتخاب رهبر جدید حفظ کند. محتمل‌ترین روند، تشدید سرکوب داخلی علیه مردم است؛ سرکوبی شدیدتر از هر زمان دیگر که احتمالاً به کشته شدن هزاران نفر دیگر منجر خواهد شد. این وضعیت با رویکرد تهاجمی ایران در عرصه خارجی نیز هم‌راستا خواهد بود. برای سپاه، این یک تهدید وجودی است و اکنون که اسرائیل بسیاری از رهبران مسن‌تر و نسبتاً محافظه‌کارتر را از میان برده، آنچه باقی مانده نیروهای جوان‌تر و تندروتر در ساختار آن است. اگر آمریکا و اسرائیل فردا بمباران را متوقف کنند، محتمل‌ترین سناریو استقرار رژیمی حتی سرکوبگرتر از گذشته خواهد بود. این سناریو در صورتی محتمل‌تر می‌شود که آمریکا دوباره به‌دنبال توافق صلح برود و ایران نیز همراهی کند، زیرا با افزایش تلفات آمریکایی، تمایل ایالات متحده به توافق بیشتر شده است. در هر دو حالت، نتیجه برای کسانی که در ایران زیر حاکمیت این رژیم زندگی می‌کنند مطلوب نخواهد بود.

فروپاشی دولت ایران

در سناریویی دیگر، اگر بمباران‌ها ادامه یابد و نیروهای نظامی و امنیتی ایران تضعیف یا ساقط شوند، پیامد آن می‌تواند هرج‌ومرج گسترده باشد. ایران که متشکل از قومیت‌ها، مذاهب و گرایش‌های گوناگون است، ممکن است به سوی نوعی جنگ داخلی سوق داده شود. از کردها گرفته تا آذری‌ها و فارس‌ها، احتمال تجزیه و شکاف عمیق وجود دارد. این وضعیت همچنین فرصتی برای دشمنان ایران فراهم می‌کند تا در شرایط مناسب ضربه بزنند. از جمله نیروهای داعش که سال‌ها با ایران درگیر بوده‌اند و نیز گروه‌های کوچکتر در عراق و کشورهای همسایه. چنین شرایطی می‌تواند سال‌ها حملات تروریستی علیه غیرنظامیان ایرانی را در پی داشته باشد، در حالی که جامعه تلاش می‌کند نظمی حداقلی و صلحی پایدار برقرار کند. از منظر نظامی، این سناریو برای آمریکا و اسرائیل ساده‌تر خواهد بود، زیرا بدون نیاز به استقرار گسترده نیروی زمینی و تحمل تلفات مستقیم، ایران به‌عنوان تهدیدی بالقوه تضعیف می‌شود و اسرائیل می‌تواند اهداف منطقه‌ای خود را بدون نگرانی از واکنش متقابل دنبال کند. با این حال، بسیاری از ایرانیان، از جمله بخشی از ایرانیان خارج از کشور، چنین آینده‌ای را محتمل نمی‌دانند و سناریوی سوم را ترجیح می‌دهند.

بازگشت شاه

برخی معتقدند حملات آمریکا و اسرائیل در نهایت به بازگشت حکومتی سکولار با حضور شاه یا فردی مشابه منجر خواهد شد. اما این سناریو کم‌احتمال‌ترین گزینه است. تغییر بنیادین رژیم، صرفاً با بمباران هوایی و حملات هدفمند ممکن نیست. چنین تحولی نیازمند حضور نیروهای زمینی برای مدیریت بی‌ثباتی، برنامه‌ریزی دقیق برای نفوذ در ساختارهای نظامی موجود و ایجاد نظم جایگزین است. بدون این عوامل، تنها امید می‌تواند پیوستن نیروهای نظامی به مخالفان باشد. در غیر این صورت، تغییر به حضور گسترده مردم در خیابان‌ها و پذیرش هزینه‌های سنگین انسانی وابسته خواهد بود. به‌نظر می‌رسد برخی سیاستمداران آمریکایی از جمله دونالد ترامپ، لیندزی گراهام و رضا پهلوی در روزهای اخیر مردم را به اعتراض فراخوانده‌اند. با این حال، واکنش گسترده‌ای مشاهده نشده، زیرا جامعه هنوز از سرکوب‌ها و کشته‌شدن هزاران نفر در اعتراضات اخیر آسیب دیده است. ترامپ نسبت به اعزام نیروهای زمینی محتاط است، چرا که از نظر سیاسی برای او پرهزینه خواهد بود، و اسرائیل نیز احتمالاً تمایلی به پذیرش تلفات مستقیم ندارد؛ به‌ویژه اگر سناریوی جنگ داخلی در ایران برایش مطلوب‌تر باشد. در نتیجه، مطلوب‌ترین سناریو از نگاه بخشی از ایرانیان، در عین حال دور از دسترس‌ترین گزینه است.

اکنون چه خواهد شد؟

با ورود به سومین روز جنگ، بسیاری از تحولات آینده همچنان نامشخص است. ابهام جنگ گسترده است و اطلاعات دقیق از آنچه در میدان رخ می‌دهد محدود است. اما روشن است که پیامدهای این جنگ به‌سرعت در حال گسترش است. گزارش‌هایی از کشته‌شدن کودکان ایرانی، تلفات نظامیان آمریکایی و حملات به کشورهای مختلف منطقه منتشر شده و با ورود لبنان و حزب‌الله به درگیری، دامنه تنش افزایش یافته است. برخی ایرانیان خارج از کشور و حتی در داخل، مرگ خامنه‌ای را جشن گرفته‌اند. با این حال، این پرسش باقی است که آیا این شادی با درک پیامدهای پیشِ‌رو به نگرانی و اضطراب بدل خواهد شد یا نه.

Yesterday, Supreme Leader Khamenei was killed in a decapitation strike. For many, he has symbolized the evils and brutality of the Islamic Republic and the puzzle piece holding the entire regime together. Now that he is gone, what happens?

Well, contrary to popular belief, after Khamenei was killed in the initial strikes from the US and Israel, the Iranian regime did not fall apart. What we witnessed was quite the opposite: a swift response from the Iranian government targeting multiple nearby countries, including Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, and Israel. In fact, the response has seemed largely unaffected by the killing of Khamenei. For anyone paying attention, it was evident that the death of an 86-year-old man on his deathbed already was not going to change much. While the Iranian diaspora takes to the streets to celebrate, many have not considered the bone-chilling future that awaits the people of Iran. In this article, I want to explore some of the scenarios most likely to unfold, and none of them look good.

IRGC Remains in Control

The first scenario we are likely to see is the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) largely remaining in control inside Iran until a new supreme leader is elected. The most likely outcome is an intensified crackdown on domestic dissent, harder than ever before, which would inevitably lead to thousands more deaths. This would coincide with the aggressive stance Iran has taken in its foreign actions during this war.

This is an existential threat for the IRGC. Now that Israel has killed many of the older, relatively more conservative leaders, all that remains are the hardline young repressive forces among its ranks. As the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin notes, Khamenei’s death creates a constitutional succession that may stall, and the IRGC could seize control entirely. Reports indicate that Khamenei’s son and de facto office director Mojtaba is also dead, along with the minister of defense and the IRGC commander.

If the US and Israel were to stop bombing tomorrow, the most likely scenario would be a brutal regime more repressive than the last taking hold. This scenario is also more likely to occur if the US pushes for peace deals again and Iran plays along, and as it seems now that this war has started to cost American lives, the US is increasingly interested in a deal. In either case, the end result will not be a pleasant one for those living in Iran under the regime.

Iranian Government Collapses

In an alternative scenario, if the bombing continues and the military and security forces in Iran are toppled, what follows could be chaos. Iran, comprising many different ethnicities, races, and sects, would inevitably fracture into civil war. From Kurds to Azeris to Persians, the result would be a broken Iran, fractured into pieces. This would also give Iran’s enemies an opportunity to strike while the iron is hot.

This would include ISIS forces, who have fought against Iran for many years, and many other smaller groups in Iraq and neighboring countries. Such a scenario would mean many years of potential terror attacks on innocent Iranians as they try to reclaim a semblance of government and peace for themselves.

Of course, Israel and the US would not mind this scenario—it would be the easiest for them to achieve militarily without ground troops and casualties on their own side. This would eliminate Iran as a threat, as they see it, and allow Israel to continue its ambitions with impunity and no worry of retaliation, as its opposition would be fully taken out.

Many Iranians, including the diaspora population, don’t believe this is what will happen and think that the third scenario is more likely.

The Shah Returns

Many Iranian people think that with the US and Israeli attacks, what will happen is the return of a secular Iran with the Shah or someone similar in charge. While this is a great fantasy, I will explain why this is the least likely scenario of them all.

A fundamental regime change requires much more than aerial bombs and decapitation strikes. It requires ground troops to manage unrest. It requires precision planning to infiltrate existing military infrastructure. Without that, the only hope would be for the military to defect. And without that, the only hope would be for thousands to pour into the streets and die in the hopes of regime change.

Evidently, it seems that is what America is counting on, as we have seen multiple reports over the past few days of people like Trump, Lindsey Graham, and Pahlavi urging people to take to the streets. Of course, this has not happened much, as people there are still recovering from the brutality and thousands of deaths of Iranians just weeks ago when they went to protest.

Trump seems wary of sending troops on the ground because it would go horrible for him politically, and Israel will not be willing to sacrifice lives when the scenario of an Iranian civil war would be better for them.

As military analysts told Al Jazeera, “You cannot facilitate regime change through air strikes alone. If anyone is left alive to speak, the state’s deep security apparatus can survive simply by maintaining cohesion.” The best-case scenario that many Iranians and the diaspora hope for is the least likely and most far from reach.

What Now?

As we soon enter the third day of this war, much of what is to come remains uncertain. The fog of war is strong, and few know the actual happenings on the ground. However, what is certain is that the consequences of this war are rapidly spreading beyond control. Many Iranian schoolchildren are dead, American military personnel have died, many Middle Eastern countries have been attacked, and the escalation increases as Lebanon and Hezbollah enter the fray.

Many Iranians abroad, and even some inside Iran, celebrate the death of Khamenei and dance with joy for what is to come. I only hope that joy is not replaced with dread as they realize of what is yet to come.

On February 28th, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes against Iran, marking what President Donald Trump called a “massive and ongoing operation” against the Islamic Republic. American and Israeli warplanes bombed Tehran and other cities including Isfahan and Tabriz, targeting Iran’s military infrastructure. The attack, dubbed “Operation Epic Fury” by the Pentagon, was launched despite ongoing negotiations in Geneva over Iran’s nuclear program, mediated by Oman.

The timing is striking: this follows almost a month of weekend-long speculation about whether the US would attack, with tensions escalating almost every weekend in what became a cruel game of geopolitical chicken.

Iran retaliated within hours, launching missiles and drones toward Israel and American bases across the Gulf region. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps confirmed strikes on Bahrain (targeting the US Navy’s 5th Fleet headquarters), Qatar (Al Udeid base), Kuwait (Ali al-Salem Air Base), and the United Arab Emirates (Al Dhafra). At least one person was killed in Abu Dhabi from fallen debris.

Within the first 48 hours, credible reports have emerged of civilian casualties, including an elementary school in Minab being attacked, with over 70 people killed—the overwhelming majority of them children. This is what an actual regime change war looks like. These are not “surgical” operations. They are not “defensive.” They are the wholesale slaughter of civilians dressed in the language of security.

Yet what is perhaps most revealing is the reaction of Western leadership. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen—all have condemned Iran’s retaliatory strikes while remaining largely silent on the original attack. The question must be asked: why does the principle of a country defending its sovereignty suddenly not apply when that country is Iran?

The answer is as old as empire itself. These leaders, regardless of their public statements, are ultimately subject to the kingdom of the United States and its geopolitical wants and needs. The hypocrisy displayed here is one of the most glaring examples of Western power dictating international order. International institutions—from the UN to the ICC—are framed around the will of the US, not actual rules and laws. When the US and Israel strike first, it’s “self-defense” and “eliminating imminent threats.” When Iran fires back in defense of its sovereignty, it’s “inexcusable and unjustifiable” (to quote European Parliament President Roberta Metsola).

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain—all countries with significant American military presence—have condemned Iran’s retaliation, with Riyadh warning of “the grave consequences of the continued violation of the sovereignty of states.” Yet none have condemned the original US/Israeli attack that provoked this response. The selective application of international law is a feature of the empire.

The Iranian diaspora celebrating this attack would do well to remember: the bombs that topple regimes do not distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. The schoolchildren of Minab did not choose their government. They did not vote for the Islamic Republic. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, collateral damage in a war that was never about them.

It doesn’t matter if you turn on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, we are for the first time seeing the mass mobilization of media to manufacture consent for us to go to war with Iran. To no one’s surprise, going to war with Iran is vastly unpopular among every demographic and political leaning. A new poll shows 65% of Democrats, 61% of independents and 53% of Republicans oppose U.S. military intervention in Iran1. Yet from all signs, it seems like the US is preparing to get involved by moving strategic tankers and even as recently as today moving their B-2 Bombers closer to Iran. So what happens when the government wants one thing, and the popular opinion wants the opposite? You manufacture consent.

While you would expect more right wing outlets, like Fox News, to be more hawkish on going to war, you are seeing the same sentiment you would not expect from the more liberal media as well. Here is Van Jones explaining why the US needs to go to war with Iran:

Misinformation on both sides

So first let’s point out the obvious and casual racism. Iran does not blind women for “showing some hair”, in fact many women in Tehran don’t wear hijabs ever since the women, life, freedom movement that happened in 2022. There are more women stem majors in Iran than men. He also later goes on to say they chant “death to Jews”. This is also a blatant lie, as there are plenty of Jewish Iranians in Iran with the same freedoms as any Iranian. Once again, Van Jones here is mistaking Zionism with Judaism.

But forgetting about the blatant racism, let’s focus on the commentary. Whether liberal or right wing media outlets, the question in these panels never seems to be on whether we should bomb Iran or not, but on whether how hard we should bomb Iran. Another great example is how both sides are covered. So far in this first week, 639 Iranians have been killed and 24 Israelis2. However, if you were to just look at the coverage, it would seem that Iran has targeted and killed more civilians. This comes to how the news covers each side. While this is nothing new, since we have for the past almost two years seen the disparity of coverage between Israel and Gaza, the same type of narrative is being pushed extremely hard by the media.

The hospital bombing

You might have heard how Iran struck a hospital in Beersheba, Israel. I will be the first one to admit that, yes, hospitals should never be bombed anywhere and it is a war crime. However, you might not have heard that Israel actually was the first one to bomb a hospital in Kermanshah, Iran just two days prior3. It would seem that the media as a whole spent an extended time covering one side of this, while ignoring how originally the hospital struck was in Iran. Furthermore, this obviously goes without mentioning all the hospitals in Gaza that have been demolished.

The US involvement question

Now comes to the present, and what every media outlet has been talking about for the past 2–3 days. Funnily enough, not one mainstream news channel has asked IF the US should get involved, but HOW much the US should get involved. Should it be one bomb? Maybe a tactical nuke instead? Maybe we should do multiple rounds of bombing. Even the Democrats are not concerned on whether we should get involved, but on whether they should vote yes in Congress before doing it. So the question becomes why do we even want to get involved? The go-to answer is Iran is two weeks away from nukes, but as I’m sure even you all have at some point heard it, the rhetoric has been used since 1995. Not only that, Iran already signed and up until the attacks was in negotiations to reduce uranium enrichment. What’s more, is that we know negotiations work, because Iran was following the negotiations before Trump ripped it up in 2018.

One must ask themselves why now that Israel is involved in a war, the question for none of the pundits is why we can’t keep doing negotiations. Instead of condemning Israel for attacking Iran in the middle of negotiations with the US, we are painting Iran as the villain and making dropping bombs as the only solution to a non-nuclear Iran. What even is the end solution to this? Even if the US steps in, and they destroy every single nuclear facility, ultimately it does not stop but only delay Iran to develop one again. Except this time they will try to hide it even better. So then the next solution becomes changing the regime of an independent and sovereign nation. And suddenly, the US will be much more involved than just dropping a couple bombs.

The bigger picture

The point of all of this is not to just point and shame the media, but to understand how this consent structure works so that you can be better aware of it. Due to social media, we already see prominent dissent who have worked to educate the people, and that’s part of the reason why we see such strong disapprovals for another war in the Middle East. When it comes to international and foreign policy, the United States is often times uniparty and all government officials have the same stance. However, it is often hard to see and spot it, but with this conflict we can see as clear as day the switch-up as outlets and media try to make invading another sovereign country more palatable to everyday people.

Before I leave, I want to end this article by showcasing a video of people in Iran, that when we are talking about war and dropping bombs, we are referring to the death of people who are not too dissimilar to us.

Subscribe now

WISCONSIN - Today we have for the first time seen a rebuke from voters in protest of the current leadership. Two big back to back wins for the Democrats have gathered a rally of supporters that just might prove pivotal against the actions of Trump’s administration so far.

Wisconsin Votes

Wisconsin came out today to vote on a special election on who will be appointed to the Wisconsin supreme court. The two candidates running were Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel, and although this race is technically supposed to be a non-partisan one, we saw clear sides taking place. Elon Musk has personally, and through third party PACS, donated almost 20 million dollars towards Brad Schimel’s campaign. The second and third-biggest donors were also Republicans, who donated towards Schimel’s campaign.

Despite this massive amount of spending, Susan Crawford not only eked out a victory, but did so with margins bigger than what Trump had against Kamala Harris in 2024. Now of course certain factors play into this. Since this is an off-year election, we generally expect lower turnout. Secondly, in off-year elections, the opposition party is the one that often wins. However, this is undoubtedly a huge blow not only to Trump, but more importantly to Elon Musk. This both highlights Elon Musk’s general low favorability, and people’s attitude towards purchasing elections by spending large amounts of money. While more spending often leads to that candidate winning, today we saw the exact opposite of that. The main focus of Democrats now needs to be on how to turn this momentum into action, and how to keep the energy going for the 2026 midterm elections.

Two other major elections were also today in Florida where Republican Randy Fine, and Jimmy Patronis handedly won their seats. However, even these results are interesting as these are deep red districts in Florida. The fact that the margins were only about 14 points is very enlightening on people’s sentiment. It’s still important to note, though that this is a special off-year election. Time will till if this sentiment holds come the midterms.

Cory Booker Stands

Today, well technically starting yesterday, Cory Booker took to the floor of the senate to filibuster in an attempt to spread his message and delay senate proceedings.

“I rise with the intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able, I rise tonight because I believe sincerely that our country is in crisis.” - Cory Booker

This came with a huge rally of support, seeing upwards of 450,000 live concurrent viewers across YouTube, TikTok, and X. Senator Cory Booker spoke on the senate floor for a continuous 25 hours and 5 minutes, breaking all records for filibustering in the senate, with the previous longest one being 24 hour and 18 minutes. While ultimately this might be seen as performative more than anything, it highlights the important fact that there are a lot of people in this country itching for action, both from themselves, and their elected representatives. I believe it is now on the Democrats to turn this rally cry from just performance, to actual tangible action. Whether that is protesting, activism, or voting, there are many people out there ready to be told on how to resist the current administration.

Conclusions

Today has almost felt slightly too good to be true. We saw a huge rally around the democrats with Cory Booker, and we saw that rally turn tangible with people of Wisconsin going out to vote. Regardless, today has undeniably been a blow for Trump and his administration. Whether this means things will change, or if Musk and Trump’s relationship will sour, is yet to be seen. However, for one day we can breathe the slightest sigh of relief, as for many are for the first time feeling a semblance of hope since the start of this new administration. Ultimately, I don’t think this hope will be long-lasting as tomorrow is set to bring a lot more news, especially as the liberation day tariffs loom ahead.

Arrests of students on college campuses has now become a daily occurrence. Besides students, we are now hearing regular news that certain US Citizens are being detained for extended period of time without any charges. This article aims to highlight recent cases, besides the high profile ones in the news cycle, to better explain the scale at which these kidnappings are happening.

All current known detainments

University of Minnesota Student - Mar 31, 2025

An unknown graduate student has been detained over the weekend. We do not currently know the name or location of this person. A spokesperson has said he was part of the Carlson School of Management. The only other evidence was put out by the university:

Dear students, faculty and staff,

We are writing to inform you about a deeply concerning situation involving one of our international graduate students at the University of Minnesota.

We learned that, on March 27 at an off-campus residence, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials detained a graduate student enrolled on our Twin Cities campus. We are actively working to gather more details about this incident.

Article: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/university-minnesota-says-graduate-student-was-detained-ice-rcna198741

Xiaofeng Wang - Mar 30, 2025 (reported)

Tenured professor and prominent computer scientist at Indiana University has been arrested around two weeks ago and there is still no information regarding her whereabouts. Indiana University has quietly erased his profile, email account, and phone number from all university databases. The person’s immigration status is unknown.

Searches of federal court dockets turned up no documents related to Wang, Ma, or any searches of their residences. The FBI spokeswoman didn't answer questions seeking which US district court issued the warrant and when, and whether either Wang or Ma is being detained by authorities… Their resident status (e.g. US citizens or green card holders) is currently unknown.

Article: https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/03/computer-scientist-goes-silent-after-fbi-raid-and-purging-from-university-website/

Alireza Doroudi - March 27, 2025

Federal immigration agents have detained a University of Alabama doctoral student and was taken into custody by ICE at 3 a.m. Thursday at his home. Not only has Doroudi been here legally under the F-1 student visa, no federal charges have been filed against Doroudi, according to a search of federal court records. His current location is currently unknown.

Article: https://apnews.com/article/campus-protests-immigration-alireza-doroudi-alabama-ae498838deb04b22864ef485a71bac27

Rumeysa Ozturk - Mar 25, 2025

This has been probably one of the more recently highly publicized cases, as security camera footage has come out of Ozturk being arrested on the street by plain-clothed officers. Ozturk, a PhD student at a Massachusetts university’s graduate school of arts and sciences, is in the U.S. legally on an F-1 student visa. She was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on Tuesday outside her apartment in Somerville while on her way to an Iftar dinner to break her Ramadan fast with friends, according to her attorney and activists. A judge had ordered Ozturk to not be removed from the state of Massachusetts, but the DOJ agents informed the judge that she has already been removed to Louisiana. She is currently being held at a detention facility.

300 Student Visas Revoked - Mar, 2025

More than 300 foreign students have had their student visas revoked in the past three weeks, personally by Marco Rubio without any cause or justification. When asked about this, Marco Rubio said:

So we’ll revoke your visa; and once your visa is revoked, you’re illegally in the country and you have to leave… At some point I hope we run out because we’ve gotten rid of all of them, but we’re looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up.

Rumeysa Ozturk, Momodou Taal, Badar Khan Suri, Mahmoud Khalil, Yunseo Chung, Leqaa Kordia. All students who were detained without any cause by ICE. Today, another student, Alireza Doroudi, was also detained without any charges and is currently being held at an undisclosed location. Students go to class in fear. 238 people who have not been officially charged for any crime have been sent to one of the worst prisons in the world. One of them was cited as being deported because their tattoos looked gang affiliated. The tattoo was of the Real Madrid football team. More than three people have been held in custody or turned away at the border for having things on their phone that go against the current administration. Permenant residents live in fear. For a lot of people in America in this very moment feel the force of a fascist regime. But if this is all true, why does the world still feel sort of normal?

Why does it feel normal?

1. You still have to do normal stuff

There’s work, bills, chores, plans, rent, more bills. You still have to do all of the normal stuff. If we’re in fascism, then how come I still have to go to work and there is no chaos in the streets? You might say to yourself, even if we are in fascism, there’s pretty much nothing I can realistically do to alter any of this, so might as well just keep on doing the same old. But here’s the thing, fascism is inherently reductive. The net cast initially is very small, very permissible. Since it’s by definition minorities, a lot of people are unlikely to see it themselves. However, as small as the initial out group is, the net gets wider and wider very quickly. For when the social contract is breached, when the constitutional limitations are broken, you have to move as quickly as you can.

2. History is not black and white

People often think events in history just happen on a certain day, at a certain time, at a certain place. We’re told that World War I started because one day the Archduke of Austria died, and then boom war. We often think Hitler came into power, and then boom holocaust. However, to the people living at that point in time, it was just another Tuesday. Because that’s the thing, they also still had to go to work. And for most, since the target was initially minorities, they didn’t really see it in their day-to-day life. What I mean to say of this is that history has always been a boiling frog in a pot of water.

What makes you call this fascism?

1. Courts

So what makes this administration fascist like? Besides arresting people without a charge, there are other red alarms. The most current issue is the constant limit testing of breaking court orders. Just today, a judge ordered the government to not move Rumeysa Ozturk to Louisiana, but the administration swiftly ignored the ruling and sent her there anyway. Their argument is the order was written after she was moved. The 238 people sent to El Salvador was against the ruling of a judge who had ordered the plane to be turned around. Their argument was that they were in international water by the time the judge wrote his order. All of this is to limit test the judicial system to see how much they can push it. Leveraging the slow moving justice system, they can get away with whatever they want while they duke it out in court.

In a second angle of attack, Trump is going after the law firms. By threatening big law firms, they are more afraid to pursue cases against the current administration. In fact, just this week, Trump has targeted Robert Mueller’s former law firm and the law firm Paul Weiss has agreed to provide pro bono work free of charge for the Trump administration in exchange for not being targeted. These two angles of attack are slowly chipping away at the last standing pillar that is the judicial branch.

2. Media

The so-called fake news, a classic fascist tactic, is to discredit journalism, and specifically any outlets that go against the current admin. We saw VOA shut down, threats to NPR, strong arming news network to settle in court for alleged defamation. While this has been a longstanding Trump tactic, it seems that they are now being targeted monetarily. We saw the Associated Press lose press pool access for not calling it The Gulf of America. Trump mostly now has administration friendly reporters that are allowed to ask questions so that there is no confrontational journalism. All of this create an environment where dissent is not allowed.

3. Schools

Perhaps one of the most textbook examples of fascism is the attack on education. A less educated populace means an easier time propagandizing the mass. The most concentrated area of attack we see right now is at the University of Columbia. Meant to act as an “example” of what could happen to other schools, they have now gotten every demand they asked for. This includes academic receivership, which puts the Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies department under essentially government oversight. It seems to be a limit test to see how much they can bully educational institutions while getting away with it. This also comes along with some other actions, such as dismembering the Department of Education and cutting funding to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which funds a majority of doctoral research at universities.

So where do we go now?

The first and foremost thing you should do is be aware. People even knowing what is happening is half the battle. And that doesn’t mean be glued to Twitter, follow every substack, and put CNN in on the background. But you can maybe put on Up First from NPR—a 10-minute daily podcast just rounding up the news—while you drive to work. Throw on The Daily Show once in a while when you're eating your lunch. Being aware is both important for your own safety, and everyone around you. And for those of you who are deep into the 17th Substack article, and scroll Twitter once hourly, get proactive and use that energy towards good. See if your congressperson has any town halls, join a community around you fighting for causes you care about, or donate a little to those causes. Turn that frustration into activism. Stay safe you guys, I’ll see you back on Monday.

A week has almost passed since the chaos of election day and in these seven days we have seen a myriad of finger pointing, victim blaming, and frankly some crazy rhetoric. Perhaps the craziest of them all has been a group of people on Twitter and TikTok who have been calling for people to tell on their neighbors by calling ICE on them. Of course, I don’t want to make it seem like this is the sentiment of everyone, but there has been a scary rise of hatred for our fellow people. On the one hand, I get it, there is a flurry of emotions from anger to apathy. But on the other hand, we see the same problem that’s repeated over and over again too often. Instead of trying to address and understand why the election swayed the way it did, we just point at each other and say we didn’t do enough or the right thing. So if we can’t point fingers, what can we do?

Where we went wrong

You know the old saying, Republicans campaign year round, Democrats campaign once every four years? I think that’s our first step. In every way imaginable, no matter what your stance is on the DNC, the Democratic Party has a big marketing issue. All the complaints that we saw the electorate has had during this election, the Democrats, and Biden have been addressing it. Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS Act, Biden’s massive pro union stance, student loan forgiveness. By far and large, these are all major legislation and positions that address the voter’s concerns over the economy, and much more useful than anything Trump has ever proposed. So why even with all of these fantastic things passed did the voters still not like the economics of the Democrats? To me, this seems like a clear issue of marketing. Democrats are great at passing legislation, but they’re horrible at showing people the great legislation they have passed. People love the Affordable Care Act but hate Obamacare. People love Social Security but hate paying for it. The Democrats can’t message to save their lives. Time and time again, we see Republican Senators who voted no on Democratic legislation take credit for it when it helps their state. It’s shameless, it’s hypocritical, but most importantly it works. Great legislation means nothing if no one knows about it, and marketing and reachability also means nothing without great legislation. So how can the Democratic Party get better at this?

1. Plaster your name all over it

Inflation Reduction Act? Call it the Biden Make America Better Act. Is it selfish? Possibly, but goddamn, I promise you it works. Cap Insulin Prices Act? That should be the Democratic Cheaper Medicine that we the Democratic Party did this Act. Okay, maybe not that last one, but you get the point. The Democratic Party has a bad brand name. It’s like Comcast, people hated them so much they changed their name to Xfinity. People time and time again love these progressive legislations, but hate the Dems.

Even in red states when the Democratic Party’s name isn’t attached, people will vote for some extremely “liberal” policies. We saw Missouri vote for abortion rights, increasing the minimum wage, and paid sick leave while voting for Trump overall. This disconnect happens so often and so many times around the country. These are all things the Dems have pushed for yet their association with the policies doesn’t exist.

2. Stop talking about the opportunity economy

Opportunity economy. Opportunity economy. $50,000 to small businesses. Have we talked about the opportunity economy yet? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, says the Democratic Party, as more and more people everyday feel like their boots are being taken away from them. The Dems keep passing good populist legislation but keep advertising themselves as neoliberals that want to create an environment where you can have the opportunity to get better. The pull yourself up era is gone and people have gotten tired of it. So many have tried, and so many have realized it’s impossible. What do people want? They don’t want the opportunity, they want their current conditions to stop getting worse. So instead of spending half the campaign talking about how much you love capitalism and the system that is continually failing people, what if we talk about the actual good legislation you have passed to help better people’s lives? I truly don’t know who in the Kamala campaign thought it’s good to run on the neoliberal opportunity economy message, but please never let them have a voice in the party ever again. Just give them a job at MSNBC.

3. Stop telling people how much you love the Republicans

I’m your average voter. I keep seeing Kamala campaigning with Liz Cheney, talking about immigration problems, and how much he loves Biden, and she’ll be exactly like him but more Republican. Well as your average voter, why in God’s green earth would I vote for the Democrats. They’re saying they’ll be a worse version of Republicans. One of the craziest quotes from Harris is when she was on The View, where she said:

I'm going to have a Republican in my Cabinet, I feel burdened by letting pride get in the way of a good idea.

You asked me what's the difference between Joe Biden and me, well that will be one of the differences

Once again, I must ask who in the world thought this was a good idea? Please also kick them out and just let them have fun at MSNBC. You can’t keep running as a diet Republican, then be surprised when people just vote for the actual Republican. Really, Kamala, you can’t think of any other way you’d be different from Joe?

I think however, this highlights an even more worrying aspect, the never Trump Republican coalition the Democratic Party welcomed with open arms might not be as big of an electorate as they had imagined. After 2016 we got a huge wave of these Republicans through the Lincoln Project, Win it Back PAC, Republicans for Harris, and more who all turned to support the Democrats as a vote against Trump. The Democrats in turn welcomed them with open arms and even emphasized them throughout this whole campaign. However, what worries me is the fact that I think slowly they have taken a hold of the DNC and are trying to make the Democrats the old Republican Party. Consequently, what we got out of that is Mark Cuban and Liz Cheney. But these Trump Republicans fail to realize that this coalition of voters no longer exists. The Democratic Party needs to snap out of it and try to go for the far more expansive center left and progressive caucuses.

Will we learn our lesson?

If I know anything about the Democratic Party, it is that the answer will be a resounding no. As we already saw, we’ll have pundits blame everyone else except themselves, the Democratic Party will shift even more right thinking that’s what people want, and rinse and repeat. I truly hope that we as individuals and those involved in the roots of the DNC can come to realize what the real issues are. It’s so easy to focus on the group that voted and try to shift to them, instead of figuring out how to get those who didn’t vote to vote for you. And frankly, given the way our two party system works, if the Dems don’t learn their lesson, I don’t see how we as a country will ever have a true left and right party. So to all reading speak your thoughts, shout from the rooftops, and for God’s sake run in your local elections. The Democratic Party is currently fractured between the old guards that have been trying to maintain the status quo and the new generation who desperately has been trying to pull them back to be the party of the people. This election was not about left or right, progressive or conservative. This election was about the closest you have seen in recent times to be the struggle between the working class and the capital owning elites. Except right now, both parties try to appeal to the elites but in different flavors.

Intro

Well, for the second time since she took the nomination, we got to see Kamala Harris’ potential policies and agendas that she is running on with her interview last night with Dana Bash on CNN. And very frustratingly, it seems like the Democratic Party is now the Republican Party of 2018 and 2020.

Now, before I dive deep into this, I want to preface it by saying that these criticisms I raise regarding Harris is not because I don’t support her and the Democratic Party over Trump. I raise these concerns and criticisms because I want the party to be better, because I know that they can be better. For the past almost decade I’ve watched the Democrats become complicit on running on the idea that they are not Trump. And the truth is it might even work again this election if we look at current polling, but the truth is this tactic will not work forever. Now, with all that said, let’s understand why some quotes from last night’s interview have piled onto my worries for the future of this party.

The Climate

First, I want to tackle an issue I personally am very invested in, climate change. Harris’ stance on climate change has been very sparse. There was zero mention of it in her DNC speech, and for the first time we heard her speak on it last night. What did she have to say? That she backed a vote to increase fracking. She mentioned how the Inflation Reduction Act had some climate investments, but that was it. We have gone from the Democrats supporting the Green New Deal, increasing renewable energy, and increasing subsidies to barely a mention of the climate in four years.

Now I understand the idea of needing to appeal, for example, to Pennsylvania voters who unequivocally support fracking jobs. But would it not be better to frame how you will support fracking while also supporting training more people to become solar engineers, windmill technicians, jobs that pay more and also help the climate? How is the current Democratic position different from Republicans? Currently, China is installing the wind and solar equivalent of five large nuclear power stations per week. It has been profitable for them, increased skilled labor, and helped lower their carbon emissions significantly. But instead of attempting to create a message to explain to voters how we can phase out these old and non-renewable industries while also subsidizing and helping create new jobs, Kamala Harris would rather just say she supports fracking.

The Border

“…a border security bill that would’ve put 1,500 more agents on the border. And let me tell you something. The Border Patrol endorsed the bill…”

The next topic I’d like to address is the border. Kamal famously in 2019 during a debate said she would be in support of decriminalizing illegal border crossings. Now I want to for one second forget about the actual policy to focus on messaging. Today, Biden has clamped down on immigration and borders more than Trump ever did, the Democrats ostensibly support a border bill, and Harris is even more hard-line in this idea. Does our border and immigration system need work? Absolutely. Is the current Democratic Party position on immigration much different than the Republicans from a couple of years ago? It’s practically the same. Why would someone who is voting on the lines of the border see both parties’ positions and not pick the Republicans who have had the same stance for decades. Kamala Harris needs to be running on the platform of increasing pathway for legal immigration, better support for asylum seekers, and the idea that America was built by and for immigrants.

It has been clear that immigrants do not commit more crime. In fact, they have the same level, and more often, less incarceration rates compared to US-Born citizens. Instead of debunking the myths and rhetoric coming from Trump and the right, Kamala Harris would rather just say she supports the border bill and shutting down the border even more.

The Israel/Gaza War

Lastly, I’d like to briefly touch upon the Gaza and Israel situation. She was once again asked about a potential arms embargo and ceasefire. Before I get into her answer, I would like to highlight one thing. No matter what your personal standings are, polls after poll has shown that a majority of Democrats support limiting weapons to Israel. It’s not just the moral choice, it’s electorally the popular and correct choice too.

Yet in her answer last night when asked if her position would be different from what Biden has done so far, she simply answered:

“No. I — we have to get a deal done. Dan — Dana, we have to get a deal done. When you look at the significance of this to the families, to the people who are living in that region — it — a deal is not only the right thing to do to end this war but will unlock so much of what must happen next.”

She stammered, she stuttered, and she basically said no, nothing will change. We will not stop sending weapons. Why? A decision that is so obvious, coming out in support of an arms embargo, would immediately garner support from Michigan voters as well as lots of people who have been turned off from voting because of this situation. Once again, how is Kamala’s position different from the Republicans? Fellow Substackers Zeteo dive deeper into this issue and show how an arms embargo would increase favorability for the Democrats in swing states.

Zeteo

New Poll Suggests Gaza Ceasefire and Arms Embargo Would Help Dems with Swing State Voters

A significant share of Democrats and independent voters in pivotal swing states Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona are more likely to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee (presumptively Kamala Harris) if said nominee pledges support fo…

Read more

2 years ago · 411 likes · 45 comments · Prem Thakker

Final Thoughts

And so this is my point. When it comes to policies, whether it’s an attempt to attract those mythical centrist voters or something else, the Democratic Party in every shape and form seem to have gone so much more right than even just four years ago. Sure, the Republicans on many of these issues have gone way to the right as well, but this is what the problem stems from. Every time Trump, or someone in the MAGA movement refuses to compromise and goes more extreme, the Democrats simply follow suit to appeal to people who are ‘the new center’. Left behind them is a group of voters who feel powerless, disenfranchised, and pessimistic. Once again, Kamala Harris is a better choice than Trump if you are a liberal, but it’s clear that it’s not Harris vs Trump. It’s now Trump 2020 vs Trump 2024. As the left continues to lose its voice more and more, the number of apathetic voters will only continue to increase.

I’d like to wrap this up by asking you guys what you think. I’ve created a poll you can answer, and as always feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.

Leave a comment

“As commander in chief, I Will Ensure America Has The strongest, Most lethal Fighting Force In The World”

“I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists.”

“I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself…And as president, I will never waver in defense of America’s security and ideals, because in the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny…”

If you didn’t know who said these quotes, what party would you think it came from? For the first time last night, we were able to see Harris’ agenda and her plan for the future. While the past month since the switch had seen a wave of enthusiasm from all demographics, until last night we had not seen clear policy agendas. It’s true that we still don’t have a policy page similar to Biden’s 110-page policy document, but we did get a glimpse as to what hers might look like. And to be frank, it looks a little scary. There were a lot of strong points in her speech. Talking about her middle class upbringing, how she has come from a family of immigrants, her commitment to women’s reproductive rights. She did a great job of explaining her origin and desire to become a prosecutor, saying “This is one of the reasons I became a prosecutor: to protect people like Wanda, because I believe everyone has a right to safety, to dignity and to justice.”

This was all fantastic, but when she eventually got to the foreign policy section, it sent shivers down my spine. Before we get into why though, we must first explore the context of all in which we lived and what came before us. Throughout the week at the DNC, with all of its energy and excitement, there was one looming issue brewing in the background, the uncommitted delegates protesting for a ceasefire in Palestine. I will save the full story for another post, but the short of it is that a group of lifelong democrats who came from uncommitted delegations where people voted protested outside the DNC to have their voices heard. Among their demands there was one simple one, to have a representative speak at the convention, which was denied by the party. This was further aggravated with reports that the DNC made a fake story about how they wanted to have a speaker on, but the uncommitted movement denied this. Furthermore, people were upset that there was time to have Republican members, billionaires, police, and a family of an Israeli hostage while the Palestinian people got no representation.

Now with all of that context, let’s dive into why Harris’ rhetoric on foreign policy was so scary. As we saw at the beginning of the article, there were big talks of having the “Most lethal Fighting Force In The World”, and taking “whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran”. This rhetoric about fighting Iran, increasing our military budget so that we have the most lethal fighting force are talks that you would hear from the likes of Lindsey Graham and John Bolton. At a time when a majority of Americans do not want to intervene in foreign affairs, who want their tax money spent on things domestically that would improve their lives, this type of language not only is scary, but has the potential to drive people away from the Democratic Party. And another slap to the face was her section about Israel and Gaza, saying:

Notice something? Painting the attack in October 7th as a horrible act of violence, which to be clear it was, while painting the violence in Gaza as some sort of natural disaster that can’t be stopped. At a time when seven in ten likely voters support a permanent ceasefire, using language that suggests the US will continue funding weapons for Israel and not mentioning how the over 40,000 deaths in Palestine were caused by the same Israeli bombs is worrisome both in her policy and in her electoral chances.

Whatever your beliefs are on foreign affairs, the question that needs to be asked is why are we okay with the Democratic Party sliding more and more to the right? Objectively, it’s not what the people want, and while many may argue that this is the party's way of attracting more center and center-right voters. The truth is that if you have one side that will always pull right and not compromise and another side that always tries to attract those in the middle, you inadvertently end up in a situation where you yourself end up on the right before you know it.

If you got this far into the post, let me know what your thoughts are down in the comments. Has the Democratic Party leaned even more to the right since the Obama years? Do you think it’s still the right move?

Leave a comment