I usually take a news and social media break around this time of year, after the spring semester ends. It’s good for me to focus on other things, treat current events as not my problem, and quiet the part of my brain that’s constantly formulating things to write about war and politics. I find that impossible while following the news or interacting online. The break typically goes for about two weeks, and I come back feeling mentally healthier, more ready to engage the mostly-awful news again. Then I write about it (here’s what I wrote about last year’s).

This year I worried I couldn’t. There are multiple important things going on, but in particular the Iran war is a big deal for me, personally and professionally, and I’ve followed developments closely. It’s also very frustrating, because the war was so unnecessary, it’s causing so much damage, and the Trump regime’s strategy is terrible. American government officials, financial markets, and a lot of U.S. media coverage are acting like the war is going well, we’re on the verge of peace, and things will snap back afterwards. I really don’t think they will.

It felt like I couldn’t look away, but there’s a good chance the situation will be in a similarly bad state a few weeks from now. Maybe I’ll miss another cycle of Trump issuing threats, lying that there’s big progress towards a deal, getting frustrated that the Iranians aren’t capitulating, then issuing threats again. We saw a version of that cycle this past week.

I’d be shocked if there’s a real war-ending, Strait of Hormuz-opening deal within the next few weeks, because what Trump broke he cannot fix. The only paths forward are a humiliating surrender or a dangerous escalation. He apparently wants neither, and has kicked the can down the road as pressure mounts.

So I’m going on break. If something big happens, someone will tell me. But otherwise I won’t know. For a bit, at least.

I’ve done a few podcasts recently, on a variety of topics. If you missed any of these, or you’d like to hear from me while I’m on break, check them out:

Neon Liberalism with Samantha Hancox-Li, a Liberal Currents podcast, where we talked about America’s Trump-accelerated decline, a post-American world order, and why China isn’t going to step in as global leader. No one will. No one can.

Listen here: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/after-america-nothing-neon-liberalism-75-with-nicholas-grossman/

To the Contrary with Charlie Sykes, where we talked about Trump’s massive corruption, easily the largest in American history—a ballroom paid for with corporate bribes and taxpayer funds, insider trading that dwarfs any previous examples, an illegal slush fund to reward/encourage cop-beating insurrectionists and other criminals he likes, etc.—along with the midterms, the Iran war, and other topics.

Listen here:

To the Contrary

Trump's Goon Squad Slush Fund

Even by the standards of Trump’s Age of Corruption his $1.8 billion cash grab to pay off his supporters is stunningly crude and brazen. On today’s “To the Contrary,” I’m joined by Nicholas Grossman, editor of Arc Digital and Professor of International Relations at the University of Illinois, to discuss Trump’s descent into new levels of kakistocracy…

Listen now

22 days ago · 66 likes · 17 comments · Charlie Sykes

The Daily Blast with Greg Sargent, a New Republic podcast, where we discuss the Iran war, the unavoidable supply shock, and how it’s become a big political liability for Trump.

Listen here: https://newrepublic.com/article/210409/trump-iran-tirade-visibly-rattles-gopers-leaks-expose-new-blunders

I wish you all the best. See you in a couple weeks.

President Donald Trump visited China, prompting thoughts of a global transition of power. The trip comes amidst America’s ongoing hegemonic suicide, as Trump is creating chaos at home, alienating allies abroad, damaging domestic and international institutions, egregiously violating U.S. and international law, breaking the U.S.-led system of open trade, and trashing U.S. credibilityin ways that will be difficult, perhaps impossible to reverse. Trump is throwing away many of the things that made America the world’s premier power, and as the United States declines, China has the most to gain.

The biggest factor is Trump’s horribly misguided Iran war, an unnecessary act of aggression that casts today’s America as more akin to Putin’s Russia than to Eisenhower, Reagan, or Obama’s United States. In prompting Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz—through which over 100 ships a day carrying oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and other essential commodities flowed freely before the war—and apparently having no idea how to fix the situation, Trump forfeited America’s position as the guarantor of freedom of navigation and global commerce.

Meanwhile, China has been rising—economically, technologically, militarily—and looking to many countries like a more attractive option merely by being consistent compared to the now volatile, unreliable, and combative United States.

On May 13, Trump went to meet Chinese leader Xi Jinping and spoke very positively of him, clearly taken in by Xi’s displays of authoritarian pomp. By contrast, Xi warned of a “Thucydides Trap”—the supposed inevitable conflict between a rising and an established power—and told Trump to stay out of the Taiwan issue. Trump went pursuing concessions on trade and deals for American businesses, and practically begged Xi for help opening the Strait of Hormuz. He got none of that.

Shortly after, Xi is scheduled to host Russian leader Vladimir Putin. The Trump and Putin visits have Xi looking like the most powerful person in the world.

But just because America is declining and China is rising does not mean China is poised to take over as global leader. Instead…

Read the full article for free at Liberal Currents here: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/staggering-towards-anarchy/

President Donald Trump is on an official U.S. state visit to China, and he brought American business leaders in pursuit of deals. One is Trump’s biggest campaign donor Elon Musk, which is very corrupt. Another is Eric Trump, who runs the Trump Organization, a private business owned entirely by Donald Trump and run by his family members. That’s even more corrupt.

Here is how the New York Times covered it:

Could raise questions? Potential blurred lines?

The lines aren’t blurred. There’s no line at all. The president has a massive financial conflict of interest, representing the United States abroad while also seeking personal business deals, trying to generate money that goes into his own pocket. Pretending that his son running the business insulates President Trump from this conflict of interest is absurd. And bringing Eric on an official state visit to China leaves no ambiguity.

But the New York Times, America’s “paper of record,” will not say so. Instead, they couch it in weak euphemisms, noting merely the hypothetical that someone else might ask questions about it.

Contrast that with how the Times covered Hunter Biden, former president Joe Biden’s son. Here is one of many examples:

“Audacious proposal,” directly stated, with no euphemisms, hypotheticals, or attributing the accusation to others.

And that’s for something much less corrupt! Joe Biden never included Hunter on any state visits or official U.S. business at all. This article describes things Hunter did independently while his father was vice president. And it involved a group that included a Chinese company, not the Chinese government itself. Despite extensive investigations, including years from Republican-led Congressional committees, no one has ever produced evidence that Joe Biden was involved, not even a little.

It was reasonable to scrutinize Hunter Biden’s business dealings, and apparent that Hunter tried trading on his father’s name. That’s not good, but it’s relatively mild, akin to past cases involving presidential relatives such as Donald Nixon or Roger Clinton. There shouldn’t be any financial conflicts of interest involving a president’s family, but nothing Joe Biden’s son (or Nixon and Clinton’s brothers) did impacted U.S. policy.

If a vice president’s son trying to drum up personal business in a foreign country using his father’s name without the vice president’s involvement is bad, then the president’s son trying to drum up personal business in a foreign country by joining his father on an official state visit is really, really bad.

I don’t think the New York Times stating the Trumps’ corruption directly will solve the problem or transform politics or even necessarily convince anyone who doesn’t already see Trump as corrupt to change their mind. But I do think such a prominent media organization should hold presidents to the same standard.

I challenge anyone to explain how describing Hunter Biden’s activity as “an audacious proposal” and Eric Trump’s objectively worse activity as “could raise questions about potential blurred lines” is not media bias in Donald Trump’s favor.

Iran responded on Sunday to President Donald Trump’s latest peace proposal with demands of its own. The United States asked Iran to agree in principle to forfeit its nuclear program and reopen the Strait of Hormuz while it negotiates the details. Iran rejected that, asking the U.S. to pay war reparations and acknowledge Iran’s sovereignty over Hormuz, by which Iran is blocking around 20% of the world’s oil and gas supply. With both countries acting like they have the upper hand, a war-ending deal is impossible.

Trump has insisted Iran has been “defeated militarily” and reassured that “as soon as the war is over, which will not be too long, you’re going to see oil prices drop.” Wall Street has appeared similarly confident. For example, JP Morgan’s latest guidance said, by June, oil shortages will “force the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, one way or another … following a clear and credible announcement ratified and confirmed by both sides.”

But no politicians or bankers have explained how this will happen, and their complacent insistence that it will work itself out delays the hard choices necessary to resolve the war. Resource shortages are growing, and…

Read the full article for free at MS.NOW here: https://www.ms.now/opinion/trump-wall-street-iran-war-stalemate

America’s democratic backsliding deepened as the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Louisiana v. Callais. The VRA passed Constitutional muster many times, and Congress renewed it in 2006 by large supermajorities, but the John Roberts-led Supreme Court undid it because they personally dislike the outcome, which isn’t their job. Meanwhile, the Virginia state supreme court blocked an amendment to the state constitution that passed by popular referendum, which isn’t really their job, and did so on a technicality that they didn’t apply to the previous Virginia constitutional amendment addressing redistricting. Both decisions boost Republicans’ political power and weaken Democrats’.

The judges wrote up some lawyerly bullshit as rationalization, of course, but I refuse to indulge such obvious bad faith, especially given the larger context of Donald Trump and the Republican Party’s assault on U.S. Constitutional democracy. If you’d like to parse the legal language, or see how the judges denied facts, distorted law, and contradicted themselves, try this or this or this.

Here, in plain language, is what happened:

Republican partisans on the Supreme Court created a pretext to gut the Voting Rights Act so the former Confederate/Jim Crow states, and red states more broadly, could manipulate maps to lock Black Americans and other minorities out of government representation. After the decision, multiple Republican-controlled states rushed to do exactly that. Then Republican partisans on the Virginia state supreme court created a pretext to prevent Virginia Democrats from responding in kind.

Tennessee Republicans carved up Memphis’ Congressional district, putting each piece with enough rural white areas to shut the city’s residents—over 62% Black and overwhelmingly Democratic—out of representation, and make the state’s Congressional delegation exclusively instead of mostly Republican. Louisiana Republicans are stopping primaries where votes have already been cast so they can redraw maps and get an all-Republican delegation, violating the “Purcell Principle” that says there can’t be changes close to an election, which the Supreme Court treated as important when it advantaged Republicans. Florida is moving to redistrict to get Republicans more seats, even though Florida law says they can’t.

All that is being done by governors and state legislatures, some of which are gerrymandered into disproportionate representation themselves. Virginia at least held a referendum to redistrict in Democrats’ favor, which was honestly framed as a response to red states’ redistricting in Republicans’ favor, and won majority support. The red states didn’t bother asking the public.

Virginia’s referendum makes state Democrats’ effort a little more democratic, but it’s still bad for democracy. White rural Virginians deserve representation, same as Black urban Tennesseans.

Except America isn’t a full democracy anymore. Thanks to Donald Trump, the MAGA movement, the Republican Party, and the Roberts Court, with a big assist from right-wing media and tech industry oligarchs, the United States has backslid into competitive authoritarianism. It’s not consolidated authoritarianism like in China, so there are still elections for national office. But the ruling party has abused power to give itself unfair advantages, with recent gerrymandering only one example.

I don’t want the United States to be in this position, but here we are. The available choice to pro-democracy Americans is (1) weakly acquiesce to further democratic backsliding and entrenched one-party rule, or (2) respond in kind to balance out illegitimate Republican power grabs as best as possible.

Ideally, fighting back will convince Republicans it’s in their interest to honor principles of democracy even if they don’t believe in them, and join Democrats in banning gerrymandering for everyone. If not, then countering the power grabs would still reduce Republicans’ illegitimate advantages, increasing the chances pro-democracy forces can gain enough power to enact democratic restoration in 2029.

In that spirit, the Virginia governor and state legislature should follow Louisiana, Tennessee, and Florida, redistricting however they want. They could defend this as the will of the people expressed via referendum, by pointing to the Supreme Court’s recent Callais decision, and/or by rejecting the state court’s bad faith cancellation of a constitutional amendment. Republicans will presumably object, but at least this makes them work to try to stop it. If they manage to, then tweak the wording and pass it again. A more drastic option within the state legislature’s legal authority is to lower the age limit for state supreme court judges from the current 73 to 54, the age of the youngest member of the faction that blocked the amendment.

I’m not necessarily saying they should do these particular moves—take this more as considering possibilities than crafting a detailed plan—nor claiming that anything will definitely work. But Virginia’s Democratic majority, and pro-democracy Americans more broadly, should fight rather than acquiesce, using any nonviolent means they can come up with, and see what happens. Get caught trying instead of forfeiting in advance. The one thing they should not do is accept that anti-democracy Republicans get to play by different, more favorable rules.

A common argument against actions like these is it will prompt Republican retaliation, setting off a downward spiral. But Republicans are already doing everything they can think of to give themselves unfair advantages. They’re already gerrymandering millions of Americans out of representation, already judge-shopping to get partisan ideologues who will distort the law in Republicans’ favor, already violating the Constitution in multiple egregious ways, and already attempted a coup.

When Democrats push back, the most Republicans can do is continue what they’re already doing. Appeasement never dissuades them from that. If anything, it encourages them.

Winning an Unfair Fight

While I think that Democrats and anyone who prefers democracy over authoritarianism should stand up to Republicans’ anti-democracy actions, I’m not panicking over the Virginia decision. It concerns only four Congressional seats—out of 435 in the House—and I stand by the argument I made in February that Trump’s effort to steal the midterms will likely fail. Not because Republicans aren’t trying, or will hold back, but because they lack the capacity. They’re beatable.

Pro-democracy Americans should fight as hard as they can for a fair system while working as best they can to gain power in the current unfair one. It shouldn’t have to be that way, but it is.

Hungarians’ recent success in ousting authoritarian Viktor Orban via elections despite distortions in the ruling party’s favor show that it’s possible. They needed a unified opposition and overwhelming numbers, crushing Orban’s party by nearly 20 points. That isn’t fair, but they pulled it off.

With that in mind, the biggest card pro-democracy Americans currently have is massive turnout in November 2026.

The president’s party usually loses seats in the midterms, and no president has had approval ratings as low as Trump. The 2018 and 2022 midterms show that some Trump supporters don’t vote unless he’s on the ballot. Beyond that, some of his 2024 voters are disillusioned—by ICE, corruption, high gas prices, etc.—and will swing to Democrats or stay home. And the worst economic effects of the energy supply crunch from Trump’s Iran war haven’t hit yet, so sentiment this fall should be even more negative for the president and his party.

High electoral margins can overcome Republicans’ anti-democratic measures. Not in every district or even state—some post-Callais gerrymanders in southern states will shut Black residents out of national representation, which probably can’t be fixed without national power—but enough to gain control of at least one house of Congress.

Winning a majority in the House is the best available way to start checking Trump, using investigatory authority and Constitutional power of the purse. The bigger the electoral margin, the greater symbolic rebuke and institutional strength in the House.

If Democrats win the Senate, even better, though that will be harder since it’s six years from Democrats’ 2020 electoral victory, and this year’s map favors Republicans. But even closing Republicans’ current 3-seat advantage in the Senate would strengthen the minority and put them in a better position for 2028.

Big turnout will also yield important gains at the state level. That’s where Supreme Court-enabled racial gerrymandering will be most directly impactful, since they can shut minorities out of state government entirely. And state gains can be nationally impactful, since state legislatures and state judges are shaping who a state sends to Congress.

America’s pro-democracy opposition is down, but not out. Success is possible under competitive authoritarianism. But you have to really compete.

There’s a persistent myth that President Donald Trump knows what he’s doing. That his actions are strategic, rather than impulsive. That he’s “playing 4D chess” — anticipating, manipulating and generally outthinking opponents. That anything he breaks he can put back together — on terms more favorable to himself — or will keep operating regardless. So don’t worry.

This still-prevalent view has reached its limit with the Iran war, even if many haven’t realized it yet.

Here are three reality checks:

Reality check 1: Economic disruption is already locked in and growing daily.

A good amount of the media coverage has treated the Iran war as another bit of Trump-caused chaos that he can wind down whenever he wants, just as his tariff blitz unsettled markets but things mostly kept functioning regardless. Stock markets are acting that way, too, with the Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq all at or near record highs.

But the global economy is already broken and Trump can’t fix it. The earthquake has hit; the ensuing tsunami just hasn’t reached our shores yet.

The last ships…

Read the full article for free at MS.NOW: https://www.ms.now/opinion/trump-iran-war-reality-check

President Donald Trump has the United States stuck in a conflict with Iran, unable to win significant concessions and unwilling to back down in the face of obvious failure. It’s possible the two sides could strike a deal, but if so, the resulting agreement is unlikely to be favorable to the U.S. and could leave Iran in a stronger position than before the war. This problem is of Trump’s own making: In spending years demonstrating that he has no credibility, he has by extension trashed America’s credibility as well.

Credibility gives words power. For words to change others’ behavior, listeners have to believe them. Promises don’t work if the recipients think you’ll break them; threats don’t work if the targets think you won’t follow through.

Domestically, if someone breaks a contract, a counterparty can seek recourse in court and the government will enforce the results. That makes the contract more credible, which makes people more willing to enter into deals. But internationally, all countries have is their word, physical capabilities and patterns of behavior. Trump’s behavior has convinced the world that he cannot be trusted. His word is worthless.

Nowhere is that clearer than in relations between the U.S. and Iran. Trump has…

Read the full article for free at MS.NOW here: https://www.ms.now/opinion/iran-war-strait-hormuz-diplomacy-trump

After threatening to destroy Iranian civilian bridges and power plants, and declaring “a whole civilization will die tonight,” U.S. president Donald Trump backed down, accepting a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire on Iran’s terms. Both sides reportedly agreed to a two-week halt in fighting to allow negotiations, using Iran’s 10-point list of demands as a framework.

Trump launched the war with absolutist goals, talking of regime change, demanding “unconditional surrender,” and saying he would pick Iran’s next leader. When it was clear the regime survived U.S. and Israeli assassinations of top leaders and could exert leverage by blocking shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, Trump escalated bombing, threatened ground invasion, and communicated a list of 15 demands that included Iran forfeiting its nuclear program and immediately reopening the strait. When that went nowhere, he bombed more, destroyed a civilian bridge—likely a war crime—and made genocidal threats. Then he folded.

Negotiations could…

Read the whole article for free in Liberal Currents here: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/trump-surrenders-to-iran/

President Donald Trump reportedly told aides he is willing to end the Iran war while Iran still controls of the Strait of Hormuz, said a closed strait blocking energy shipments is other countries’ problem and told interviewers the strait will “automatically open” when the United States leaves, which will not be “too much longer” because “it’s a total obliteration.”

Stock markets leapt up on the news. But the strait is America’s problem, whether Trump wants it to be or not, and Iran gets a say in how this goes.

The oil and natural gas markets…

Read the full article for free at MSNOW here: https://www.ms.now/opinion/trump-strait-hormuz-iran-war-problem

Before American financial markets opened on Monday, March 23, nearly a month into the U.S-Israeli war on Iran, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. and Iran have had “very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East,” and therefore the U.S. would refrain from attacking Iranian power plants as he had threatened last week. Iranian state media portrayed that as the U.S. backing down in the face of Iran’s warnings, and speaker of Iran’s parliament Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf said no negotiations had taken place, claiming that Trump was lying “to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the U.S. and Israel are trapped.”

All sides in this conflict have incentives to lie and spin—psychological warfare, signaling resolve, posturing for domestic audiences, shaping outsiders’ opinions, establishing negotiating positions, etc.—so no one should take either at their word. Outside observers can’t know if any talks really took place, and if so, what happened in them. Pakistan reportedly offered to mediate, and sent Iran a 15-point plan from the U.S. Iran has rejected that offer, according to state media, and it continues blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the choke point at the end of the Persian Gulf through which about 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas usually flows. Missiles are still flying, global energy shortages are worsening, and the U.S. is sending about 2,000 soldiers from the Army’s 82nd Airborne to the Middle East, adding to the 4,500 Marines already in route.

On the competing claims about progress or lack thereof, it looks like Qalibaf’s statement is more accurate, especially the part about Trump manipulating markets. Economic damage is accumulating, and fewer Americans supported the war at the start than any post-WWII U.S. conflict. Gas prices have risen about a dollar per gallon since before the war began at the end of February, creating political liabilities for the president as his party faces a challenging Congressional election this November.

It also looks like there’s been some massive insider trading. 15 minutes before Trump’s announcement, trading in oil and S&P futures spiked to an unusually high volume, with $580 million betting on an oil price decline alone. Then the market opened, oil plunged, stock indices rose, and someone made a fortune.

But is Qalibaf right about the second part, that the U.S. and Israel are trapped? Do America’s leaders want the fighting to stop more than Iran’s? If so, Iran would now be more in control of the war than the militarily superior countries that started it.

Trump could…

Read the full thing for free in Liberal Currents: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/what-if-iran-doesnt-want-the-war-to-end-yet/

The Iran war is exposing President Donald Trump’s unfitness for national leadership. The lie-filled bluster and escalation he relied on to succeed in business and domestic politics aren’t working, and the situation is out of his control. The world is interconnected and other people get a say, including oil companies and energy markets. But Trump never understood that, and since he has no other moves, he’s kept doubling down despite no plausible path to victory, making things worse.

With Venezuela, Trump said he attacked to take oil, equating his personal rapaciousness with national interest. After U.S. special operations forces ousted Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, Trump found the rest of the Venezuelan regime more pliable, including now-interim President Delcy Rodriguez, and told U.S. energy companies to go get Venezuela’s oil.

Except those companies didn’t want it. Which shouldn’t have been a surprise. Venezuela’s oil deposits are dirty, needing considerable refinement, and drilling isn’t profitable unless oil is priced higher than it was at the time. The infrastructure is poor, and U.S. companies would have to spend billions developing it. And the security situation was volatile after the U.S. military overthrew the national leader. Oil is flammable, and platforms would be a target if an insurgency develops.

But apparently it was a surprise to the White House. Trump berated energy executives, but that didn’t work. They won’t throw away money just because he told them to.

With the Iran war, Trump is trying…

Read the whole article for free at MS.NOW here: https://www.ms.now/opinion/trump-iran-war-strait-hormuz-failing-business

Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz in response to the U.S.-Israeli attack means widespread economic disruption. There is reliance on energy through all aspects of the economy. There are also additional oil effects—things like uses for metallurgy processes, for example, different byproducts used for agriculture—and oil is a global commodity, meaning that it is produced in many different places. The United States both imports and exports; it refines products, it drills crude oil, and all of this is on a day-to-day supply chain. So when things get disrupted, there’s a little slack in the system, but really not much, and then the prices go up. A 20 percent supply decline is incredibly disruptive—it means that there is simply not enough oil to go around.

This was the explicit thing that we saw coming. And by “we,” I mean the broad national security community. It is very likely that people inside the military and the national security establishment told this to the White House—whether Trump himself heard it, or didn’t listen, or others tried to tell him, who knows. But this was the exact reason why we said: yes, confront Iran, but in smarter ways, as opposed to this one thing. This is their big leverage—don’t play into it. And now the U.S. has, and it’s not going to clear up soon.

The paragraphs above are an excerpt from a podcast interview on the Iran war, Trump, and the many big implications that I recorded this week with Greg Sargent. You can hear the whole thing for free by searching on various podcast apps for The Daily Blast podcast from the New Republic, or by following this link. Or you can read the transcript here.

“If the U.S. ends up withdrawing” from the Iran nuclear deal, I wrote in March 2017, “it sets the Middle East on a path to two possible futures: (1) A nuclear Iran. (2) War. Both are much worse than the status quo.” Nine years later, America launched a war on Iran.

I knew those were the only two options because nuclear technology is decades old, and the only way to really prevent a country from getting it is if they choose not to. Iran borders nuclear-armed Pakistan, and has a long-running adversarial relationship with nuclear-armed Israel and America—plus the Iranians saw the U.S. negotiate with North Korea, which has nukes, while attacking Iraq, which didn’t—so they have reason to want a bomb. Sabotage, cyberattacks, killing nuclear scientists, and limited military action could set back Iran’s nuclear development, while paradoxically increasing its incentive to establish a deterrent. The only lasting way to prevent Iran from going nuclear was convincing this regime to give it up, or forcibly replace them with a regime that will.

The 2015 nuclear deal, more formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), restricted Iran’s nuclear activities. It was the painstakingly negotiated, highly detailed result of over a decade of diplomacy. The international community, backed by UN Security Council resolutions, sanctioned Iran for years, offering history’s tightest nuclear deal as an alternative. Iran eventually agreed, and the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China, and the E.U. all signed. Three years later, Iran was following it—but Trump broke it anyway, saying that “maximum pressure” would get a “better deal.”

It predictably didn’t. Iran was under less pressure than before JCPOA, since most of the world didn’t reimpose sanctions when the U.S. broke an agreement they wanted to keep.

Trump reneging on the Iran nuclear deal closed off the diplomatic path…

Read the full article for free at Liberal Currents: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/international-relations-is-not-a-morality-play-what-to-expect-from-the-war-with-iran/

On Donald Trump’s orders, the U.S. military has massed around Iran, the largest build-up in the Middle East since invading Iraq in 2003. America’s intentions aren’t clear—regime change? damage? coerced negotiations?—as there’s been virtually no public explanation or debate. A bluff to generate leverage and preparation for a real attack look the same until someone starts shooting or backs down.

Trump expressed support for recent Iranian protests and promised “help is on its way,” then did nothing as government forces massacred thousands of people and reasserted control. In a long State of the Union address, he spent little time on Iran, declaring that Iran “will never have a nuclear weapon,” and saying “we’re in negotiations with them, they want to make a deal,” without offering specifics.

U.S. officials have held talks with Iranian representatives, but they’ve gone nowhere, surprising the White House. The New York Times reports, “as American warships and fighter jets mass off its shores, Iran has refused to concede to President Trump’s demands on its nuclear program and weapons — a stance that has bewildered U.S. officials.” Trump envoy Steve Witkoff expressed a similar confusion: Trump is “curious as to why they haven’t... I don’t want to use the word ‘capitulated,’ but why they haven’t capitulated.”

This confusion is unsurprising from people who approach the world as narcissistic, risk-averse bullies.

Trump and Co. seem genuinely surprised when the smaller side doesn’t give in to threats, even though it keeps happening. He recently declared that America would own Greenland, proceeding as if Denmark would hand it over since the U.S. is more powerful. They refused, Trump made more threats, but Denmark and allies deployed troops as a signal of commitment, and Trump backed down. At least for now.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Trump called it “genius.” That reflected his long-running Russia sympathy, yes, but also indicated he expected it to work. “Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump gushed in an interview.

Trump appears genuinely confused that Ukraine didn’t capitulate. After becoming president again, he has tried to end the war by reducing support for Ukraine and berating the Ukrainians to accept the supposed inevitability of Russian victory. It hasn’t worked.

Asked about Ukrainian President Zelensky saying it’s unfair to demand concessions from Ukraine but not Russia, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt snapped that Trump “doesn’t think it’s fair thousands of Ukrainians are losing their lives.” As if Russia aggressively invading means Ukraine should bow down — a remarkable claim from the leaders of a country and political party fond of Revolutionary War slogans such as “give me liberty or give me death” and “don’t tread on me.”

Trump has shown a willingness to use force—including without proper Congressional authorization, against U.S. and international law—but only when it’s short, low risk, with little-to-no follow through.

He bombed Iranian nuclear sites for a few days last year, but only after Israel had been bombing for a week, taking down Iranian air defenses. Then Trump lied that Iran’s nuclear program was “completely and fully obliterated.”

He’s bombed small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, shooting at people who can’t shoot back. That’s killed at least 148 people, none of whom posed a national security threat, and hasn’t reduced drug trafficking either.

By contrast, the Houthis shot back, and Trump backed down. The Yemen-based, Iran-backed group fired on international shipping in the Red Sea and shot rockets into Israel, claiming solidarity with Palestinians in the Gaza war. Promising to stop it with force, Trump began bombing Yemen in March 2025, declaring that he’d hold Iran responsible for “every shot fired by the Houthis” and they’d face “dire” consequences. The U.S. dropped about $1 billion worth of bombs on Yemen, damaging some targets, killing some people, and losing two fighter jets—which fell into the sea in separate incidents, possibly from their carrier turning quickly to avoid Houthi fire—but failed to end Houthi attacks.

Then in early May, Trump stopped the strikes, claiming he forced the Houthis to make a deal. The group kept attacking Israel, and two months later fired on Red Sea shipping again. In response, Trump did nothing, acting as if it didn’t happen.

That recalls when the U.S. killed Iranian general Qassam Soleimani in Trump’s first term. The impetus was attacks by Iran-backed militias in Iraq, Trump officials claimed killing Soleimani stopped it, but everyone below Soleimani moved up a spot and Iranian support for proxies continued. Militia attacks in Iraq did too, Trump just didn’t talk about it.

Something similar happened in Venezuela. U.S. special forces removed president Nicolas Maduro, but left the rest of the regime intact. There’s minimal follow through, no apparent advancement of U.S. national interests, nor improvement for the Venezuelan people.

Iran poses a bigger version of that problem. Threats won’t make the regime give up its nuclear or missile programs, bombing can’t end them, and removing top leaders probably won’t change things. It’s a bureaucracy full of ideologues, not a personalist dictatorship. You can’t bomb knowledge, and Iran already rebuilt some of the capacity Israel and America damaged last year.

This is a failure of Trump’s own making. The U.S. had a deal curbing Iran’s nuclear program, but Trump scrapped it in 2018, letting Iran out of restrictions in exchange for nothing while promising that “maximum pressure” would get Iran to accept a “better deal.” It didn’t work, and Iran ramped uranium enrichment back up. Iranian officials who argued that the U.S. can’t be trusted got a big “told you so.”

That makes it even harder for Tehran to make a deal, since they cannot trust that American pressure will ease in response. They saw Trump back down from confronting the Houthis, but respond like a stereotypical bully to domestic and international institutions that give in, treating concessions as a sign of a soft target and demanding more.

Iran won’t capitulate under threat, forfeiting major national interests because Trump told them to. His track record suggests he doesn’t have the stomach or strategic foresight for protracted conflict, and will back down if things get difficult, which makes Iranian leaders think they can weather an assault. And they have strong domestic political incentives to resist, fearing that weakness against foreign pressure could fracture the regime or encourage domestic opponents.

That leaves the U.S. choosing between another round of limited bombing that accomplishes little, a bigger campaign to collapse the regime with no apparent plan for what comes after, backing down in embarrassing fashion, or an empty “deal” Trump can lie about that, at best, kicks the can down the road and makes the problem even harder to solve.

Donald Trump will not be able to steal this November’s midterm elections. He and his allies will keep trying to manipulate the midterms in their favor, which Democrats, pro-democracy activists, and all Americans who care about our constitutional system should keep working to counter. But he won’t succeed: No matter how much Team Trump disregards norms and laws, there’s no mechanism for taking over state elections, reversing losses, or preventing newly elected members of Congress from sitting, especially if Republicans lose by substantial margins. Vigilance is warranted, but excessive fear plays into the authoritarians’ hands.

This is not a call for complacency. Backsliding from democracy into authoritarianism is greased by people saying Calm down, it’ll be fine, the institutions will handle it, he doesn’t mean it, someone will stop him. I’m not doing that.¹

But I think it’s important to right-size worries. To focus on what could realistically happen rather than lose time and expend attention and resources worrying about what can’t.

Authoritarianism is…

Read the full article for free at the Bulwark here:

The Bulwark

Trump Can’t Steal the Midterms

DONALD TRUMP WILL NOT BE ABLE to steal this November’s midterm elections. He and his allies will keep trying to manipulate the midterms in their favor, which Democrats, pro-democracy activists, and all Americans who care about our constitutional system should keep working to counter. But he won’t succeed: No matter h…

Read more

4 months ago · 103 likes · Nicholas Grossman

Armed federal forces of ICE and Border Patrol—below referred to collectively as “ICE,” since they’re working in concert and much of the public doesn’t distinguish between them—invaded Minnesota, acting like secret police and repressive paramilitaries rather than law enforcement, killing two innocent people, Renée Good and Alex Pretti. The officers have been met by an outpouring of nonviolent resistance, including thousands of regular Minnesotans spotting, following, warning others about, and verbally denouncing the invaders.

By relentlessly documenting ICE abuses—in subzero temperatures, taking on risk of arrest, assault, and death—Minnesota’s ICE-watchers, along with supportive demonstrations from hundreds of clergy and others, have gotten the horrors into more information streams. More people are paying attention, undermining Trump regime lies, and shifting public stances. On its own that won’t reverse America’s democratic backsliding, but it’s a significant step, and shows how the Trump regime is faltering.

Read the full article for free in Liberal Currents: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/nonpolitical-media-has-been-flooded-with-reactions-to-alex-prettis-murder/

U.S. President Donald Trump has been demanding control of Greenland, which is part of Denmark, a U.S. treaty ally. The people of Greenland and Denmark have adamantly refused, with support from various European countries, and Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on Europe if they don’t capitulate.

On January 18, Trump sent a letter about this to the prime minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre. It’s so full of lies, and such a good illustration of the current U.S. government’s approach to the world, that it’s worth going through point by point.

Here is the full text of the letter (in italics below) with my comments interspersed (in regular text).

Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided to not give me the Nobel Peace Prize

As Norway has repeatedly explained, the government does not decide who gets the prize. And Norway has no say in who controls Greenland.

for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS

Total bullshit, and not worth our time to debunk each lie. The “eight” includes Congo-Rwanda, where fighting continues, India-Pakistan, who say they reached their current status themselves, and Iran, which Trump bombed to little effect. The weird “PLUS” at the end is probably leveling up the lie, similar to how the number of wars he falsely claimed to have stopped was seven at first, then grew to eight.

I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but now can think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.

So absurd it’d be laughable if it weren’t deadly serious. In the first year of his second term, Trump ordered the U.S. military to launch attacks in Venezuela, Nigeria, Yemen, the Caribbean, eastern Pacific, Somalia, Syria, and Iran. His illegal tariffs have undermined the global trading order that has helped keep the world relatively stable—a lesson from the 20th century, since the collapse of trade in the Great Depression contributed to World War II—and his threats to U.S. treaty allies have weakened the United States.

Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China

Of course Denmark would have trouble protecting its land on its own if a larger country attacked. But it doesn’t need to. Denmark and its security partners in NATO, the most powerful alliance in history, protect Greenland together, along with the rest of the North Atlantic. Besides, Russia and especially China are not threatening Greenland. America is.

Everyone can see Trump doesn’t care about protecting land from Russia. Ukraine is under Russian attack, but rather than working to counter Russia’s aggression, Trump has been trying to get Ukraine to surrender.

The main beneficiaries of Trump undermining the Western alliance, America’s trade relationships, and the U.S.-led world order are China and Russia. Taking advantage of America’s new hostility, China recently cut a deal with Europe to allow more sales of Chinese electric vehicles, and another deal with Canada, a broader agreement that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney hailed as “a new strategic partnership.”

Russia’s aggression under Vladimir Putin means few countries are interested in a deal with Russia, but Putin has long dreamed of ending NATO, and probably can’t believe his luck. On Russian state TV, commentators celebrated Trump’s Greenland threats for “delivering a catastrophic blow to NATO” that is “truly tremendous for Russia.”

and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also.

There are written documents, namely the Greenland Home Rule Arrangement of 1979 and the Self-Government Act of 2009, reflecting the will of the people of Denmark and Greenland. But yes, the reason it’s Denmark and not Sweden, Portugal, the U.K., or another country traces back to who landed boats centuries ago.

Many will note the hypocrisy of a white American president saying that boats landing hundreds of years ago is not a basis for current ownership. But Trump’s stance is consistent with a worldview that rejects sovereignty, rights, law, and related concepts, where there’s no such thing as legitimate claims to land, and ownership is exclusively a question of force.

I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding

An up-is-down, reality-inverting lie. Trump has singlehandedly weakened the alliance, creating more friction inside NATO than ever before, potentially destroying it.

Trump apologists might note that European countries have increased defense spending, which has long been a bipartisan American goal. Except the big increases came in 2014, when Russia took Crimea from Ukraine, and 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion. It was a response to external threat, not American persuasion, and Trump was not president either time.

To the extent he’s gotten Europe to spend more on security, it’s been by convincing them that the U.S. might not honor its treaty commitments, making Europeans feel less secure, and reduce their cooperation with the United States. But the reason American leaders wanted Europe to spend more on defense was to strengthen NATO as a whole, not weaken it.

and now, NATO should do something for the United States

NATO does valuable things for the United States every single day, including intelligence sharing and defense coordination to better address shared challenges. Various members allow U.S. military bases, which America uses to facilitate operations in the Atlantic, the Middle East, and elsewhere. That includes Greenland, where the U.S. military has had a base since the 1950s.

Starting with Dwight Eisenhower, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander has always been a U.S. military officer. Other NATO members have at times placed their forces under at least partial U.S. command, a historical rarity that increases American power.

The only time countries have acted on Article 5 of the NATO charter—”an attack on one is an attack on all”—was in response to the September 11th attacks in the United States, increasing counterterrorism cooperation and sending troops to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Not incidentally, the country that took more casualties per capita than any other U.S. partner in Afghanistan was Denmark. They didn’t deploy because they were attacked, but because America asked for help.

The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT.

Another thing that’s the opposite of true. The United States already had military access to Greenland. Trump’s threats have made the world, and America, less secure.

Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden, and other European countries have sent some troops to Greenland in an attempt to demonstrate their commitment and deter the United States. They aren’t big deployments, but they still take up time, attention, and military assets that could be used to counter Russia or any other external threat. Instead, NATO members have to spend those resources countering NATO’s strongest country.

To the extent there are real security issues involving Greenland, they concern the Arctic, which will become increasingly accessible as the world warms, opening up shipping lanes and resource deposits. Except the Trump administration’s official stance is that climate change is a hoax, so that’s another lie.

Russia has the most land above the Arctic circle and the longest coastline. Everyone else with territory in the Arctic is in NATO: Canada, the Scandinavian countries, and the U.S. via Alaska. The best way, by far, for the United States to advance American interests in the Arctic is partnering with NATO allies, not cutting off U.S. access by antagonizing them. As I wrote a year ago when Trump first started threatening Greenland, Canada, and others, “allies are assets, you idiots.”

Some call Trump’s threats against an ally “insane” or “mad king” behavior—and it is by traditional American values—but it fits an aspiring autocrat who called Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “savvy” and “genius,” an anti-democracy narcissist who sees wealth and glory for himself as a paramount national interest, a liar who frequently screwed over business partners, a convicted criminal who thinks it’s unfair if laws apply to him, and a rapist who likes taking things without consent.

None of that was remotely hidden when Americans decided to elect him a second time.

The United States military captured Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, and while many reactions focus on Maduro himself, that’s mostly beside the point. His government is repressive and illegitimate, having stolen Venezuela’s most recent election in 2024, but there are numerous bad governments in the world. The most important question before forcibly removing a foreign head of state is if it will make things better. On every stated and possible U.S. goal, this will more likely make things worse.

Botching Post-Maduro Venezuela

It’s unclear that removing Maduro means the regime will actually change. A state is a lot more than one person, and the rest of the Venezuelan government appears intact. The general who has led the armed forces since 2014 and deepened the Maduro regime’s control, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López, is still there. So is the powerful Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, who helped Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, thwart an attempted 2002 coup and subsequently consolidate power. Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, has been sworn in as president, and U.S. President Donald Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke to her and “she’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary.” But Rodríguez has publicly denounced the U.S. attack, and even if that’s for show and she supports U.S. efforts—Rodríguez has been under sanctions by the U.S., so that’s a big “if”—it’s hard to see how she could successfully do what the U.S. wants without setting off a civil conflict with Cabello, Padrino, and others.

Trump announced that the U.S. will “run the country,” except there’s no apparent plan to do that…

Read the full thing at The Unpopulist for free here:

The UnPopulist

Trump Is Ensuring That His Venezuela Attack Has No Upside for Anyone

The United States military captured Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, and while many reactions focus on Maduro himself, that’s mostly beside the point. His government is repressive and illegitimate, having stolen Venezuela’s most recent election in 2024, but there are nu…

Read more

5 months ago · 14 likes · 1 comment · Nicholas Grossman

Visiting family in Maryland for the holidays, my wife and I decided to take our kids into Washington DC for a few hours to see some monuments. Before moving to the midwest for work, we lived in DC for five years—in Adams Morgan, if you’re curious—and the trip down memory lane was nice, but when we got to the National Mall, it was weird. I saw signs of, and couldn’t avoid thoughts about, the second Trump administration shifting the United States away from democracy in the direction of personalist dictatorship.

We went to the Lincoln Memorial, and my 4th grader recognized the steps as the spot Martin Luther King Jr. delivered “I Have a Dream.” I couldn’t help but think of Trump, self-styled “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth, and other officials taking steps to resegregate the government, and the Stephen Miller-led deportation campaign cracking down on many non-criminals without even attempting due process. America’s leaders are judging people not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin.

Walking inside the secular temple to America’s other greatest orator, we saw carved into the walls Lincoln’s most famous speeches. I’ve read these words many times, but they took on new meaning, sad yet determined in a way that felt current, not only historic.

There’s the Gettysburg Address:

We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

And the second inaugural:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in… to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Breaking the tension the way only kids can, my 1st grader asked if Lincoln really was as big as the statue.

We walked past some kitted-up National Guard troops, standing in a clump doing nothing, deployed by the president based on lies to assert authoritarian power. The 1st grader asked if they were from a war, and after acknowledging that he was right about the uniform, I said no and mumbled something about how they shouldn’t be here, then changed the subject.

We went past the Korean War memorial, including photos honoring American troops for helping rescue refugees, something the Trump administration despises. Next was the World War II memorial and its unifying, antifascist imagery.

From the Washington Monument, near where I stood with 1.8 million freezing people for Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, my family looked at the Capitol, the first time I saw the building in person since the January 6 attack. The appearance is the same, but it felt different, the site of an insurrection I now teach about in my course on terrorism and insurgency.

The night before I moved out of DC in 2013, I walked around the Capitol, admiring its physical and symbolic beauty. Now I know details of the grounds and entrances like Civil War reenactors know the fields of Gettysburg.

We turned and walked past the White House—”looks like the pictures,” said my 4th grader—and I was glad that, from our angle, we couldn’t see the construction site where the East Wing used to be. Trump illegally tore that down for a tacky ballroom, which the administration assures everyone is being built with money from corporations, not taxpayers, as if being funded by bribes makes it better.

At this point, the kids were getting tired, and we circled back to the car, walking past the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment of the Humanities, which Trump is devastating with illegal cuts. Our route out of town took us by the Kennedy Center—which Trump renamed after himself, also in violation of the law—with its weirdly awkward new lettering saying “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”

Seeing all this in person bothered me more than I expected.

But despite all that, I’m feeling pretty optimistic heading into 2026. It all depends on your perspective. In normal liberal democracy terms, the United States is in bad shape. But in consolidated authoritarianism terms, we’re doing pretty well.

I flipped that mental switch after the 2024 election, evaluating America by how fast it was backsliding. For the first few months of Trump’s second term, things went downhill fast. The regime grabbed more power, Republicans enabled it, Democrats reeled from their electoral loss, and some societal leaders, most prominently tech billionaires, rushed to embrace the new corrupt order.

But as the year progressed, signs emerged that the regime missed its chance to permanently end American democracy. The near future will be tough, but I’m taking solace in these three things:

1—This Could Have Been Popular
In 2024, Trump had his best electoral showing ever, winning the popular vote for the first time after running as a convicted criminal opposed to rule-of-law democracy, with his most explicitly white nationalist campaign yet. In office, he’s corrupted federal law enforcement, usurped Congress’s power of the purse, shifted foreign policy in Russia’s favor, broken a lot of laws, and sent ICE to violate rights. And the American public could’ve been into it.

But they’re not. Obviously some are, but far from a majority. Trump’s approval rating has declined, and he’s underwater on just about every issue. Big “No Kings” protests and Democratic victories in the 2025 elections showed that Trump’s 2024 win was specific to that year’s circumstances—inflation, a global anti-incumbent wave, etc.—not a lasting societal shift.

As frustrating as this may be for people who follow politics and take it seriously, millions of Americans voted for Donald Trump believing that he wouldn’t do the things he kept saying he’d do. That wasn’t a majority of his supporters, but still a significant, election-swinging subset. Now that they’ve seen it in practice—now that they’ve touched the stove—they don’t like it.

2—We Could Have Had Smarter Fascists
Popular support gives would-be dictators room to operate, but the Trump regime’s haphazardness and corruption has done the opposite. The smart move would’ve been throwing economic benefits at the public, especially supporters, while consolidating institutional power behind the scenes.

Instead, Trump and Co. have raised prices with tariffs, raised unemployment with illegal firings and macroeconomic uncertainty, harmed tourism with harassment of foreigners, and undermined healthcare for millions of Americans in ways that are unignorable and likely to get worse. They’ve been so blatant with lawbreaking that they’ve gotten numerous rebukes in court, sometimes even in front of judges inclined towards deference. And their culture-warring has been so heavy-handed that it’s prompted backlash.

For example, the regime and its allies went on a bout of censorship after the killing of Charlie Kirk, and did get some people fired or suspended for speech, but faltered in their public push to get comedian Jimmy Kimmel off the air. More recently, artists have been canceling Kennedy Center performances, and Trump-installed director Ric Grenell has been sputtering about suing them, prompting more to cancel.

3—Limited Capacity
In ways large and small, the United States has seen serious democratic backsliding. But while the Trump regime’s desire for authoritarian dominance is bottomless, its capacity is not. They’ve reduced their own law enforcement and prosecutorial capabilities with political purges and pursuit of personal vengeance. Even as they damage the U.S. Constitutional system, they show their limited ability to assert undemocratic control.

One example is ICE and Border Patrol. They’re hurting people—including legal residents and citizens—violating rights, and imposing a climate of fear in their “mass deportation” campaign. But notice how they pop up in one city at a time, then mostly leave? And how they’ve been frustrated by concerned communities following them with whistles?

Combined, ICE and Border Patrol have maybe 50,000 active officers. Despite low standards and increased funding, they’ve struggled to recruit more. In the United States, there are many jobs for competent people interested in law enforcement, and there aren’t that many Americans who want to brutalize nannies at the playground, daylaborers in a parking lot, or parents at school drop-off.

By comparison, the Nazi SS had about 250,000 members in 1939, before Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland. Unemployment in 1930s Germany cracked 25%, and more than a third of young men were out of work. Even with Trump’s economic damage, unemployment in the U.S. currently sits at 4.6%, a post-pandemic high, but nowhere close to the Great Depression. 2020s America doesn’t have the bitter legacy of World War I, and interwar Germany didn’t have video games or social media.

The fact that I’m making serious comparisons to Nazi Germany highlights how bad things have gotten. And it also shows how much worse they could be. It’s important to keep both of those in mind at once, not growing complacent, nor excessively despairing.

America is in bad shape, as I couldn’t avoid thinking about while walking the National Mall, and will probably get worse. But after this difficult year it looks like the regime doesn’t have it. A lot of America is resisting, and there’s a good chance we eventually get out of this, albeit not without more pain.

A note to Arc Digital readers:

I write to be read, and greatly appreciate all of you who engage with my articles, and especially those who share them, online and off. And because I want as many people reading as possible, I avoid putting things behind a paywall or otherwise restricting content to paying members.

But this, as you can imagine, is not a good way to get paying subscribers. The standard practice is to make about half of the articles members-only, but I don’t want to do that, preferring to keep things I write for Arc and elsewhere available to all.

So if you’ve gotten something out of my writing, please consider tossing some coins in my jar by upgrading to a paid subscription if you are in position to do so. That gives you the ability to leave comments, which I always read and often respond to, but primarily, it will keep nearly everything I write free to read.

Happy New Year. I’d say something like “here’s to a better 2026,” but as you can tell from this article, I’m not sure if that’s in the cards. So here’s to staying sane in 2026, in no small part from solidarity with each other.

Regards,
Nick

The United States military bombed Nigeria on Christmas, reportedly targeting ISIS militants. President Donald Trump claimed the U.S. struck terrorists “who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries.”

Nigeria has been plagued by sectarian violence, but that violence hasn’t primarily targeted Christians — and certainly not at historically unprecedented levels. America’s logic here isn’t clear, but the strikes appear driven more by Trump putting on a show for his evangelical base than trying to reduce violence in Nigeria or even advance U.S. national interests.

It’s the first time…

Read the rest for free at MS.NOW here: https://www.ms.now/opinion/nigeria-strikes-isis-trump-military-evangelicals-christians