"The US has lost control of this war," said foreign policy expert Trita Parsi.
By Stephen Prager • Mar 20, 2026
As fears mount that he may soon launch a ground invasion of Iran, President Donald Trump is sending thousands more Marines and sailors to the Middle East.
According to a Friday report from Reuters, three US officials said that an expeditionary unit of about 2,500 Marines, among roughly 4,000 total service members, departed from San Diego aboard three ships on Wednesday—the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer and two amphibious transport dock ships, the USS Portland and the USS Comstock.
They will join around 50,000 US troops already in the Middle East, including another unit of around 2,500 Marines who were reported to be headed to the region last week, just before Trump launched an assault that struck military installations on Kharg Island, a critical hub for Iran’s oil exports.
Officials said it was not known for what purpose the additional troops were being deployed.
Trump was coy this week when asked by reporters if he planned to send ground troops into Iran.
“No, I’m not putting troops anywhere,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday. “If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you, but I’m not putting troops.”
He previously emphasized that he would not be afraid to put “boots on the ground” in Iran if he deems it necessary.
“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground—like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it,” the president told The New York Post at the beginning of March.
With US gas prices nearing $4 per gallon and expected to climb further due to Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Axios reported on Friday that Trump is weighing plans to have US troops occupy Kharg Island, through which about 90% of Iran’s oil exports move, in a bid to pressure Tehran into reopening the critical waterway.
Foreign policy experts have warned that a full-scale occupation of Kharg Island would be likely to fail and put more troops in harm’s way while further embroiling the US in a quagmire.
“Even a blockade of Kharg Island would not force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz,” said Danny Citrinowicz, a senior fellow at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. “For Tehran, control over the Strait is not just economic leverage—it is a core component of regime survival and deterrence.”
“Reopening the Strait would likely require one of two extreme options: either regime change, or a large-scale military campaign to seize and secure the waterway. Such an operation would take months and still wouldn’t prevent Iran from disrupting traffic through asymmetric means.”
Dominic Waghorn, the international affairs editor of Sky News, explained that “opening up a waterway that can be blocked again by cheap, easily deployable drones will be hugely challenging” and will likely only demonstrate to Tehran that the United States is “desperate.”
The idea of sending ground troops into Iran is also deathly unpopular with the American public. In a Data For Progress poll published Thursday, 68% of voters surveyed said they would oppose putting boots on the ground, compared to just 26% who’d support it.
Even Republicans, who’ve generally backed Trump’s military interventions to the hilt even though the president campaigned on “no new wars,” are split on the idea, with 48% saying they’d oppose it and 48% in support.
Nevertheless, one official told Axios that in addition to the Marine units already heading to the Middle East, the Pentagon was considering sending even more troops soon.
“He wants Hormuz open,” the official said, referring to Trump. “If he has to take Kharg Island to make it happen, that’s going to happen. If he decides to have a coastal invasion, that’s going to happen. But that decision hasn’t been made.”
Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted earlier this week that the Strait of Hormuz would never have become an issue in the first place were it not for Trump’s decision to launch a “war of choice” against Iran.
“I don’t think President Trump, in his own words frankly, understood what he was getting into,” Sadjadpour told NPR. “What began as a war of choice, in my view, has actually morphed into a war of necessity. I don’t think that President Trump is going to simply be able to end the war and claim victory.”
The war is costing American taxpayers $1-2 billion per day, according to lawmakers familiar with the Pentagon budget who spoke with The Intercept earlier this week, which estimated that it could cost trillions in the decades to come if prolonged.
“The US has lost control of this war,” said Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He said that even if Trump pulled out now and declared victory, Iran would be determined to inflict maximum costs.
“Iran has leverage for the first time in years and will seek to trade it in,” he said. “It has publicly demanded a closing of US bases, reparations, and sanctions relief in order to stop shooting at Israel and open the straits.”
If the president’s base of supporters begins to sour on the war, Parsi said, “it will become increasingly clear—if it hasn’t already—to Trump that all his escalatory options only deepen the lose-lose situation he has put himself in.”
"People can't afford childcare," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
By Jake Johnson • Mar 20, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday that it is absurd for the Trump administration to demand another $200 billion from Congress for an illegal war on Iran after lawmakers already approved $1 trillion in military spending for the year—and while millions of people across the nation are struggling to afford basic necessities.
“You got people all over this country, 20% of households, spending 50% of their income on housing,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an appearance on MS NOW. “People can’t afford healthcare. People can’t afford childcare. And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought.”
The senator’s remarks came as President Donald Trump, who has not yet formally requested the funds from Congress, suggested another $200 billion would be a “small price to pay” as the US-Israeli war on Iran heads toward its fourth week with no end in sight.
“I think the Trump people are in a bit of panic,” Sanders said Thursday. “They’re losing ground. Gas prices are soaring. There is massive discontent against this war. It’s got to end, and we’ve got to make sure that Trump is neutered in 2026.”
With the Trump administration considering a plan to deploy thousands of additional troops to the Middle East amid widespread fears of a ground invasion of Iran—which would explode the price tag of an already costly war—the National Priorities Project (NPP) released an analysis highlighting where the $200 billion requested by the Pentagon could be better spent.
The group estimated that $200 billion would be enough for all of the following this year:
Medicaid for the 17 million people who will lose it due to budget cuts and other policies;
Food stamps for the 22 million people who will go hungry due to Trump’s budget cuts;
Medical care for the 1.8 million veterans of the last forever war who still live with disabilities; and
Tripling the number of kids in Head Start, from just over 700,000 to 1.4 million kids.
“Pete Hegsethwould rather the US bomb Iranian families than feed American families,” wrote NPP’s Lindsay Koshgarian, referring to the Pentagon secretary. “We should remember the lies that led us into war in Iraq a generation ago. That war ultimately cost nearly $3 trillion. We must not go down that path again. Our tax dollars should be helping struggling Americans, not feeding new forever wars.”
New revelations show an IG report about wait times for people seeking help or services was altered after it was submitted to the administration.
By Brad Reed • Mar 19, 2026
A Social Security advocacy organization on Thursday blasted the Trump administration for covering up damaging information contained in an inspector general report released in December.
According to The Washington Post, a report from the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) inspector general (IG) about call wait times for beneficiaries was altered to make it seem as though wait times to speak to representatives had been reduced to under 10 minutes per call.
“An unpublished draft of the report... showed that the inspector general had planned to report another metric—called the ‘total wait time’—to measure the overall time it takes for callers to be connected with an SSA employee,” the Post explained. “According to that draft report, in 2025 total wait time averaged 46 minutes to over two hours.”
The Post added that this “information was deleted from the draft after the agency reviewed it before publication.”
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, responded to the report by saying that “now we know why [President Donald] Trump fired the inspector general at Social Security,” noting that the SSA IG was one of several fired across multiple agencies at the start of Trump’s second term.
Altman then argued that the attack on inspectors general was part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to dismantle government transparency all together.
“Inspectors general are the American peoples’ eyes and ears in these agencies,” said Altman. “The Trump administration is undermining that oversight at every turn. Under this administration, the IG has no ability to conduct independent oversight. There is no meaningful check on the Trump administration’s Social Security sabotage.”
Democratic communications consultant Jesse Lee linked the damage to the SSA documented in the draft IG report to efforts by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which went on a firing spree of federal workers last year.
“So DOGE did a smash and grab at the Social Security Administration, breaking into the most sensitive data, firing phone and in-person case workers,” Lee wrote. “Trump appointee waved around an IG report claiming wait times were fine—after burying the real report saying they were up to two hours.”
“At a time of extreme and growing inequality," said one critic, "today’s proposals will drain lending away from Main Street families’ needs and priorities and further enrich the already wealthy on Wall Street."
By Jake Johnson • Mar 19, 2026
The Trump administration and Federal Reserve unveiled proposals Thursday that would significantly reduce capital requirements for the largest banks in the United States, potentially setting the stage for another financial industry collapse as the US-Israeli war on Iran destabilizes the global economy and jacks up prices for consumers.
Under the new rules proposed by the Fed, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, large banks would have to hold nearly 5% less capital on average. The advocacy organization Better Markets noted that the proposals—combined with other deregulatory actions taken by the Trump administration and the Fed over the past year—would return Wall Street banks’ capital requirements “to the irresponsibly low 2007 levels they had just before the 2008 crash.”
“At a time of extreme and growing inequality, when tens of millions of Americans are struggling to pay their bills, today’s proposals will drain lending away from Main Street families’ needs and priorities and further enrich the already wealthy on Wall Street and the top 10% of Americans they focus on serving,” Dennis Kelleher, the president of Better Markets, said in a statement. “The banking agencies’ proposals to loosen capital rules are a victory for Wall Street lobbying, and claims to the contrary are nothing more than an attempt to mislead the American people.”
Fed Gov. Michael Barr, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, was the central bank board’s lone dissenting voice against the new rules, a product of years of aggressive Wall Street lobbying for less stringent regulations in the wake of the Great Recession.
“Today’s proposals, if adopted, would harm the resilience of banks and the US financial system,” Barr warned in a statement. “There are suggestions that liquidity requirements could also be reduced. Additionally, Federal Reserve supervisory staff have been cut by over 30%, and supervisory practices have been weakened. Banking is built on trust. I worry greatly that these actions are rapidly eroding that trust.”
The new deregulatory package, which will be subject to a 90-day public comment period before it’s finalized, comes as President Donald Trump is waging an expensive and deadly war on Iran with no end in sight and attacking social programs at home, from Medicaid to nutrition assistance.
“With private credit markets cratering, AI transforming the workforce, and Trump’s Iran war threatening the world economy, we need healthy, resilient, well-capitalized banks,” said Bartlett Naylor, an economist for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. “Lessons learned after millions lost their jobs, homes, and savings following the 2008 megabank crash must not be ignored.”
“Trump’s bank regulators propose to tear at the already tissue-thin layer of solvency levels at the nation’s banks,” said Naylor. “Lowering solvency standards won’t generate more loans; it will only send banks closer to failure.”
Matt Stoller, an anti-monopoly researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, wrote that the juxtaposition of a quagmire in Iran, Wall Street deregulation, and millions of Americans losing health insurance “tells the story” of the Trump administration.
The effort to curb banks’ capital requirements was spearheaded by Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, a Trump appointee whose nomination last year was criticized by watchdogs as a “gift to the banking industry.”
Kelleher of Better Markets said Thursday that “such counterproductive, shortsighted, and wrongheaded rulemaking isn’t a surprise given that the interests of Wall Street’s biggest banks are driving the priorities at the banking agencies, rather than facts, merit, and the public interest.”
“The worst is at the Federal Reserve, where the senior regulatory staff comes from Wall Street’s top DC lobbyist (the Bank Policy Institute), Goldman Sachs, and one of Wall Street’s top law firms (a former partner is now the directorresponsible for supervising and regulating his recent Wall Street clients),” Kelleher observed. “That’s why mindless deregulation, especially for the biggest Wall Street banks, is at the top of the agenda, just as it was in the years before the 2008 crash.”
"The so-called 'balanced budget amendment' is the Republicans’ latest backdoor attempt at gutting Americans’ hard-earned benefits," said one Democratic lawmaker.
By Jake Johnson • Mar 19, 2026
Nearly every member of the House Republican caucus voted Wednesday in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that experts say would result in massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, nutrition assistance, and other key federal programs.
The proposed amendment, led by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), would effectively prohibit the federal government from deficit spending, with an exception for declared wars. The final House vote on the amendment was 211-207, well short of the two-thirds support required for passage of a constitutional amendment.
Every Republican who took part in Wednesday’s vote backed the proposed amendment. Just one Democrat—Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas—joined the GOP in voting yes.
The vote came as congressional Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, continued to reject efforts to halt a war that is costing US taxpayers roughly $1 billion a day—a price tag that some in the GOP have openly embraced.
The vote also came less than a year after congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump approved a sprawling reconciliation package that delivered another round of tax cuts primarily to the richest Americans and large corporations, while enacting unprecedented cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.
Nonpartisan analysts have estimated that the GOP budget law would add more than $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.
“American families don’t need a lecture on fiscal responsibility from the same politicians who just added $4 trillion to the debt with their so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’—one of the most expensive pieces of legislation in American history,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.),the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “When it comes to cutting taxes for billionaires, they have never had a problem blowing up the deficit. This amendment is nothing more than a show to cover up their hypocrisy on the debt.”
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said following Wednesday’s vote that “the so-called ‘balanced budget amendment’ is the Republicans’ latest backdoor attempt at gutting Americans’ hard-earned benefits.”
“It would force drastic cuts to Medicare, Social Security, food assistance, veterans’ benefits, and other programs American families depend on,” said Larson. “My Republican colleagues can say this amendment is about fiscal responsibility all they want, but the reality is that the budget they passed last year ballooned our deficit by $4 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and give ICE a slush fund larger than most nations’ militaries.”
"We are seeing the Iran war become a quagmire in real time," said one analyst.
By Jake Johnson • Mar 19, 2026
The Pentagon reportedly wants Congress to approve more than $200 billion in supplemental funding for US President Donald Trump’s unauthorized and deeply unpopular war on Iran as the administration weighs deploying thousands of additional troops to the Middle East, signaling a drawn-out conflict and a possible ground invasion.
The Washington Postreported late Wednesday that the Pentagon has asked the White House to sign off on the supplemental funding request as the financial and human costs of the Iran war balloon. The $200 billion figure, which drew immediate backlash and vows of opposition from several Democratic lawmakers, is quadruple the number widely floated in recent days as the department’s likely supplemental request.
“This should be an absolute nonstarter,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in response to the Post’s reporting. “The best way to end this war, protect our troops, save civilian lives, and rein in a lawless administration is to cut off funding. I’m a hell no.”
“If the Pentagon is asking for $200 billion they are asking for a long war,” Gallego added. “The answer is a simple no.”
Any funding package would need 60 votes to get through the US Senate, requiring some Democratic support. As of this writing, neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has responded to reports of the Pentagon’s request.
The Post reported Wednesday that “it remains unclear how much the White House will ultimately ask congressional lawmakers to approve,” and that “some White House officials do not think the Pentagon’s request has a realistic shot of being approved in Congress.”
Prior to the start of the Iran assault, Trump called for a $1.5 trillion US militarybudget for the coming fiscal year even after the Pentagon failed its eighth consecutive audit.
The Pentagon’s push for $200 billion in Iran war funding comes after US investigators reportedly determined that American forces were responsible for the bombing—on the first day of the war—of an Iranian elementary school that killed around 175 people, mostly young children.
News of the Pentagon’s funding request came as Reuters reported that the Trump administration is “considering deploying thousands of US troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the US military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran.”
“The deployments could help provide Trump with additional options as he weighs expanding US operations, with the Iran war well into its third week,” Reuters reported. “Those options include securing safe passage for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a mission that would be accomplished primarily through air and naval forces, the sources said. But securing the Strait could also mean deploying U.S. troops to Iran’s shoreline, said four sources, including two U.S. officials.”
“The Trump administration has also discussed options to send ground forces to Iran’s Kharg Island, the hub for 90% of Iran’s oil exports,” Reuters added. “One of the officials said such an operation would be very risky. Iran has the ability to reach the island with missiles and drones.”
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said Wednesday that “we are seeing the Iran war become a quagmire in real time.”
“Asking US taxpayers to spend $50 billion on a war Trump claims we have already won was outrageous enough,” said Williams. “Quadrupling that within a week shows a total lack of understanding or control over what he has gotten us into.”
Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen, author of the Diplomatic newsletter, wrote Wednesday that “Trump blundered into what he thought would be a few day ‘excursion’ as he calls it, maybe Venezuela 2.0.”
“That is not what Israel had in mind, the military has hit all of its targets,” Rozen added. “He has no idea what he is doing, his intelligence and other aides were appointed not to tell him anything he does not want to hear; not a single one of them can explain what the goal is. Congressional Republicans have their heads deep in the sand, and now talk of a $200 billion Pentagon supplemental and sending more potential ground troops.”
Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, highlighted the Post’s reporting on social media and called $200 billion “the tip of the iceberg.”
“Ordinary Americans can thank Benjamin Netanyahu and his lackeys in Congress for the trillion-dollar ‘Israel First tax’ that’s about to hit the US economy,” he wrote.
“Burgum’s Extinction Committee is immoral, illegal, and unnecessary,” said the head of the Center for Biological Diversity, which warns it could put the final nail in the coffin of the extremely endangered Rice's whale.
By Stephen Prager • Mar 18, 2026
An environmental organization is suing to stop the Trump administration from illegally convening a meeting that could allow oil and gas companies to drive an extremely endangered whale species to extinction.
On Wednesday, the Center for Biological Diversity filed an emergency lawsuit against Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum in a federal district court in Washington, DC, seeking to block him from convening the Endangered Species Committee, more commonly known as the “Extinction Committee,” on March 31.
This committee is sometimes referred to as the “God Squad” because its members have the power to grant exemptions to the Endangered Species Act that can result in the extinction of imperiled species.
Led by the interior secretary, it has seven total members who can vote to override regulations. Five of them are senior executive officials: the secretaries of agriculture and the Army, the head of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Each affected state also receives a delegate to the committee, but they collectively receive just one vote. Five votes of seven are needed to grant an exemption.
In the federal register, Burgum announced earlier this week that the committee would meet at the end of the month “regarding an Endangered Species Act exemption for Gulf of America oil and gas activities,” referring to the Gulf of Mexico by the name preferred by President Donald Trump.
The Center for Biological Diversity said Burgum was seeking to override a requirement for oil and gas companies in the Gulf of Mexico to drive boats at safe speeds in order to protect the nearly extinct Rice’s whale from strikes.
These whales, named after the cetologist Dale Rice, who first recognized them as distinct from other whales in 1965, were not formally recognized as a new species until 2021.
According to the Center for Biological Diversity, only about 51 Rice’s whales remain after BP’s catastrophic Deepwater Horizonoil spill in 2010, which devastated their population.
Last May, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service issued a biological opinion concluding that their continued existence—as well as that of other whale and sea turtle species—was under threat from boat strikes, since Rice’s whales spend most of their time in the top 15 meters of water, which often puts them on a collision course with oil vessels.
The agency issued guidance requiring oil industry ships to travel at slower speeds in the eastern Gulf, saying that if they were followed, lethal collisions would be “extremely unlikely to occur” and that the species would be protected.
The Extinction Committee could override this rule, but it has only been convened three times in its history, and not since 1991, when then-President George H.W. Bush used it to open up timber harvests in the Pacific Northwest that endangered the habitats of spotted owls, which were considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
The Extinction Committee is invoked so rarely because the circumstances for its use, as outlined in law, are extremely narrow: It can only be convened within 90 days of a biological opinion by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service concluding that a federal action is likely to jeopardize a species. They must also determine that there is no “reasonable and prudent alternative” to the action the government plans to take.
In its lawsuit, the Center for Biological Diversitysays that neither of these criteria has been reached, since the Fisheries Service issued its opinion 10 months ago and already established a reasonable alternative: slowing down the boats.
“Slowing boat speeds is not just reasonable, it’s easy, and it’s the absolute minimum the oil and gas industry can do to save Rice’s whales from extinction,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity.
The group said Burgum is also flouting other requirements of the law, including that the meeting be presided over by an administrative judge and have a formal hearing with public comment. No judge has been appointed by Burgum, and the meeting is only scheduled to be livestreamed on YouTube, with no forum for public input.
“Burgum’s Extinction Committee is immoral, illegal, and unnecessary,” Suckling said. “There’s no emergency, no legal basis to convene the committee, and no legal way to approve the extinction of Rice’s whales. This sham is nothing more than Burgum posturing for Trump and saving the fossil fuel industry a few dollars by allowing its boats to drive faster and more recklessly.”
If Rice’s whales were to go extinct, they could be the first ever large whale species to be driven out of existence by human activity in recorded history.Earthjustice says that the rollback of boat speed restrictions and other activities by the Trump administration—including the approval of the first BP oil field in the Gulf since the 2010 spill—are putting other species at risk too.
The scheduled March 31 meeting, said the group, “could kick off a months-long process to decide whether to give special treatment to the oil industry by allowing offshore drilling to go forward even if it would lead to the extinction of Gulf species.”
“The marine species in the Gulf are our natural heritage. There’s no imaginable justification to sacrifice them,” said Steve Mashuda, Earthjustice’s managing attorney for oceans. “It’s beyond reckless even to consider greenlighting the extinction of sea turtles, fish, whales, rays, and corals to further pad the oil industry’s pockets at the public’s expense. Giving carte blanche to industry also takes us further away from renewable energy that is cleaner, cheaper, more reliable, and more efficient than ever before.”
"All of Beirut shook," said one resident who was forced to take shelter in the city after an Israeli displacement order forced her from her home in the suburbs.
By Stephen Prager • Mar 18, 2026
An Israeli airstrike totally demolished a large apartment building in central Beirut on Wednesday, following a night of attacks on densely populated residential areas, several of which reportedly came without warning.
Videos shared to social media and by local media outlets show the 10-story building, located in the Bachoura neighbourhood in central Beirut, suddenly collapsing into rubble in the early hours of the morning after being struck with a missile.
Israeli authorities issued a forced displacement order to residents of the building over social media around 4 am local time, roughly an hour before the strike. It warned residents of buildings in the Bachoura area that they were “located near Hezbollah facilities” and needed to move at least 300 meters away.
Israel has claimed the building was used by the militant group Hezbollah to stash large sums of money, but has provided no evidence publicly.
Citing Lebanon’s Health Ministry, the Associated Press reported that at least four people were wounded in the attack, which sent emergency teams rushing to the scene through a plume of black smoke.
Residents of the collapsed apartment building have taken to social media to describe their horror at seeing their home suddenly destroyed.
“I am a US citizen and surgeon who took care of the Boston Marathon bombing victims in 2013,” said Haytham Kaafarani, a professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School. “I paid for seven years to own a small apartment in downtown Beirut for my three kids to enjoy summers there. Today, Israel reduced my dream home to rubble, with American weapons, paid by my taxes.”
Another professor, Bilal R. Kaafarani, who teaches chemistry at the American University of Beirut, said something similar.
“Israel demolished the building I have an apartment in. It took 22 years of my work here and 20 years of my wife’s work to own this apartment,” he said. “This madness has to stop.”
The attack came after a night of intense airstrikes upon civilian areas in Lebanon’s capital, which reportedly came without warning in the middle of the night and into the early morning.
According to Lebanese authorities, at least 20 people were killed in a series of attacks on Beirut and the southern and eastern parts of the country, while dozens more were injured.
Lebanon’s health ministry reported that more than 900 people have been killed and 2,200 injured in Israel’s latest round of attacks in Lebanon, which began on March 2 after Hezbollah retaliated against the US-Israeli war in Iran.
The attacks beginning Tuesday night came less than a day after Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned that “deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime,” noting that hundreds of homes and other civilian infrastructure, including health facilities, had been destroyed by prior Israeli attacks in Beirut.
Israel has issued evacuation orders that have forced more than 1 million Lebanese people from their homes as part of an expanding ground invasion into southern Lebanon.
Sara Saleh, a 29-year-old taking shelter in a nearby school after being forced from her home in Beirut’s southern suburbs, told the Agence France-Presse that she and her family “were asleep” when Israel’s warning came down early Wednesday morning. She said they were left to flee for safety in their pajamas.
She said the attack on the apartment “was terrifying... all of Beirut shook.” Speaking with a face mask to protect herself from dust kicked up by the demolished building, she said her sister’s children “started crying and panicking, it was heartbreaking.”
The mass displacement of civilians in Lebanon and Iran has been met with increasing criticism from UN experts and human rights organizations.
As reports of the apartment bombing rolled in, Philippe Lazzarini, the commissioner-general of the UN agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), said that “international law is being openly ignored” and that “impunity reigns and disproportionate actions are being normalized amid the escalating conflicts in the Middle East.”
“It is a vicious circle,” he said. “The more violations, the stronger the culture of impunity becomes.”
"It’s time to kick AIPAC and other billionaire-funded super PACs out of Democratic primaries."
By Jake Johnson • Mar 18, 2026
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee failed on Tuesday to secure wins in the two Illinois US House primaries it invested the most money in, the latest electoral flop for the pro-Israel lobbying organization whose brand has become increasingly noxious to Democratic voters amid Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza.
In Illinois’ 7th and 9th Congressional Districts, AIPAC spent millions backing Chicago treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin, who finished second, and Democratic State Sen. Laura Fine, who finished third. In the latter race, AIPAC pivoted from initially attacking Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss—who ultimately won—to concentrate on defeating Justice Democrats-backed Kat Abughazaleh.
AIPAC, which faced backlash for trying to conceal its spending in the Illinois contests using shell organizations, tried to spin the 9th Congressional District results as a win, despite spending more against Biss than against Abughazaleh.
“Though Kat narrowly lost this race, we are proud to have backed this campaign that helped ensure the people of IL-09 would not be represented by another AIPAC shill,” Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, said in a statement. “This outcome is a massive loss for AIPAC as they lose more and more influence within the Democratic Party. No amount of shell PACs or covert funding can hide their toxicity from Democratic voters, their monopoly over this party’s agenda is coming to an end.”
Two AIPAC-backed candidates did prevail Tuesday: Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller in the 2nd Congressional District and former Rep. Melissa Bean in the 8th Congressional District.
AIPAC’s mixed results came amid broad alarm over outside spending that flooded Tuesday’s midterm primary elections in Illinois, driven by pro-Israel, crypto, and AI special interest groups. Overall, more than $92 million was spent on campaign ads in Tuesday’s contests in Illinois, a state record.
“I think we can safely say that almost $100 million spent in a handful of primaries is a full-spectrum disaster for democracy,” wrote David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, which called the torrent of spending “a corruption of democracy that is relatively unprecedented in modern elections.”
The National Journal reported Tuesday that when the national midterm cycle is over, “the price tag for the Illinois primary will be an important footnote in what’s projected to be the most expensive midterm election ever.”
“The nonpartisan research firm AdImpact estimates that more than $10.8 billion will be spent on ads alone this cycle,” the Journal observed. “Even as the competitive map gets smaller, the price tag keeps increasing as more outside deep-pocketed groups invest more in primaries.”
Super PACs, entities that can spend unlimited sums boosting their preferred candidates, pumped roughly $31 million into Tuesday’s US House primaries in Illinois. AIPAC-linked organizations accounted for around $22 million of the total.
“It’s time to kick AIPAC and other billionaire-funded super PACs out of Democratic primaries,” US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote ahead of Tuesday’s races.
"While we're busy destroying the Gulf, our side project is implementing a total siege on the island of Cuba," said one progressive critic. "Unbelievably cruel."
By Jessica Corbett • Mar 16, 2026
Cuba faced an island-wide blackout on Monday amid an energy crisis resulting from President Donald Trump’s decision to ramp up the United States’ decadeslong and legally contested blockade of the Caribbean country by cutting off shipments of Venezuelan oil.
“A total disconnection” of the island’s electrical system had occurred, but “the causes are being investigated, and protocols for restoration are beginning to be activated,” the Cuban Ministry of Energy and Mines said on social media. It later added that “no faults” were reported in the units operating when the grid collapsed, and “the restoration process continues.”
While Cuba has endured power outages in recent years that officials and experts have blamed on both the condition of the country’s system and US sanctions, there have been multiple major blackouts in recent months, since Trump sent soldiers to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and seized control of Venezuela’s nationalized oil industry.
“Officials in the US [government] must be feeling very happy by the harm caused to every Cuban family,” Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío told CNN of the latest outage. The network noted that it had reached out to the White House for comment.
Blasting the blackout as “a direct consequence of Trump’s economic warfare,” Manolo De Los Santos of The People’s Forum in New York Citysaid on social media Monday that “the US has deliberately cut off fuel, spare parts, and equipment, crippling an already fragile grid. It’s a genocidal siege, designed to starve and break the Cuban people into submission.”
Similarly highlighting how “decades of US sanctions have made it harder for Cuba to access the fuel, equipment, and financing needed to maintain its energy grid,” New York state Sen. Jabari Brisport (D-25), a democratic socialist, declared that “it’s time to end the blockade and pursue diplomacy.”
The blackout on the island of nearly 11 million people came after Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel publicly confirmed on Friday that his government recently held “sensitive” talks with the Trump administration “to determine the willingness of both parties to take concrete actions for the benefit of the people of both countries.”
Specifically, according to The Associated Press, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio—the son of Cuban immigrants and longtime supporter of regime change on the island—and top aides met with Raúl Guillermo Rodriguez Castro on the sidelines of a Caribbean Community leaders meeting in St. Kitts and Nevis last month.
During his Friday remarks to reporters, Díaz-Canel also emphasized the impacts of Cuba not receiving oil shipments for over three months, including disruptions to communications, education, healthcare, and transportation across the island.
While Trump was speaking with reporters on Monday, he called Cuba a “failed nation,” and claimed that “Cuba also wants to make a deal, and I think we will pretty soon, either make a deal or do whatever we have to do.” He also signaled that any such action would come after the illegal war his administration and Israel are waging on Iran.
Although Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently helped Senate Republicansblock Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-Va.) war powers resolution intended to halt Trump’s assault on Iran, Kaine has now partnered with Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) for a similar measure on Cuba.
Meanwhile, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) took to social media on Monday to weigh in on the grid collapse: “Cuba has gone dark. Trump’s vindictive oil embargo—along with a sanctions regime that has starved Cuba of opportunities to develop its solar and wind—is depriving innocent Cuban citizens of basic necessities and creating a humanitarian crisis. Trump must end the embargo.”
Markey and two other Massachusetts Democrats, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Jim McGovern, had previously written to Trump in February to call for an end to the oil embargo, stressing that “Cuba poses no credible national security threat to the United States,” and “the overt strategy of choking off oil imports to the island is inflicting severe hardship on the Cuban people, who rely on imported fuel for electricity, transportation, healthcare, and clean water.”
“Taking action that sparks a humanitarian crisis as a means of leverage is not a strategy that results in long-term success or reflects who we are as Americans,” they argued. “Policies that intensify fuel shortages, cripple essential services, and deepen economic desperation risk destabilizing not only Cuba, but the broader Caribbean region.”
"While US servicemembers die in another forever war in the Middle East, Donald Trump’s 'peace envoy' is raising money for his private equity firm," wrote US Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
By Jake Johnson • Mar 16, 2026
Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, is reportedly trying to entice governments in the Middle East to invest billions in his private equity firm while he simultaneously works as “a special envoy for peace”—a role he appears to have used to help convince Trump to wage war on Iran.
The New York Timesreported late last week that Kushner “has spoken with potential investors in recent weeks about raising $5 billion or more for Affinity Partners, his investment firm.”
Citing five unnamed people with knowledge of the talks, the Times reported that “Affinity’s representatives have already met with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund,” Affinity’s largest investor. Saudi Arabia’s leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, reportedly played a significant role in the behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign urging Trump to attack Iran—Saudi Arabia’s top regional rival.
“Mr. Kushner’s fundraising is expected to stretch on for the better part of this year,” the Times added. “The efforts show the blurring of the lines between public service and private profit-seeking during Mr. Trump’s second term. Only a few weeks ago, in his role as Mr. Trump’s ‘peace envoy,’ Mr. Kushner met in Geneva with Iran’s foreign minister. The US and Israeli bombing campaign in Iran began shortly after those meetings concluded without a deal on Iran’s nuclear program.”
Last week, Trump said he decided to attack Iran in coordination with Israel—whose prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a personal friend of Kushner’s—because the president “thought they were going to attack us,” a view he claimed to have reached after listening to “what Steve [Witkoff] and Jared and Pete [Hegseth] and others were telling me.”
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in response to the Times reporting that “while US servicemembers die in another forever war in the Middle East, Donald Trump’s ‘peace envoy’ is raising money for his private equity firm.”
Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, wrote in a social media post on Sunday that a “fair and equitable deal” between the US and Iran “was within reach” before Trump and Netanyahu started bombing.
“Those providing poor advice to POTUS are responsible for bloodshed,” Araghchi wrote, attaching a screenshot of the Times story on Kushner’s fundraising efforts. “This war is imposed on both Americans and Iranians.”
Judd Legum, founder and author of the Popular Information newsletter, noted last week that Kushner’s participation in the Geneva diplomatic talks that preceded the US-Israeli assault on Iran “violated his pledge not to be involved in foreign policy in a second Trump administration.”
On Monday, Legum observed that Kushner also said in December 2024 that his private equity firm would not “have to raise capital for the next four years,” allowing him to “avoid any conflicts” of interest.
Trump formally named Kushner a “special envoy for peace” last month, a move that means the president’s son-in-law is now required by law to file a financial disclosure report. Kushner has just days left before the 30-day deadline to file the disclosure.
Donald Sherman, president and CEO of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, wrote in a letter to the White House last week that “Mr. Kushner’s history of financial gains resulting from his time as a White House advisor during President Trump’s first term raises serious concerns about potential conflicts of interest that must be addressed before Mr. Kushner participates in any additional matters that may relate to his own financial interests or those of his investors.”
“The risk of Mr. Kushner’s potential conflicts is particularly concerning because his private investment firm has very publicly done significant business with foreign partners who also have interests in the conflicts on which he has been assigned to work,” Sherman noted.
As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future.
No matter how much the DNC leadership tries to shunt it aside, the burning issue of US policy toward Israel will not go away.
By Norman Solomon • Mar 18, 2026
When the governing body of the Democratic Party convenes next month, it will face a challenge to its support for Israel. The Democratic National Committee has evaded the fact that large majorities of Democrats oppose continuing military aid to Israel and believe it has committed genocide in Gaza. The stage is set for jarring discord when the DNC’s 450 members gather in New Orleans.
An NBC poll released this week underscores the depth of the DNC’s political folly. The results were lopsided, by a 67-17 percent margin in favor of Palestinians, when the survey asked Democrats: “Are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?”
The DNC leadership has stayed on a collision course with political realities about Israel. Last August, while a Gallup poll was showing that just 8 percent of Democrats approved of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, DNC chair Ken Martin said at a meeting of delegates from across the country that “there’s a divide in our party on this issue.” He didn’t acknowledge that the crucial divide is actually between the party’s leadership and Democrats nationwide.
At that summer meeting, amid contention over US policies toward Israel, Martin withdrew his party-line resolution after it won and after a pro-Palestinian rights measure lost. He called for “shared dialogue” and “shared advocacy,” announcing that he would appoint a task force “comprised of stakeholders on all sides of this to continue to have the conversation.” Martin declared that “this crisis in Gaza is urgent” and an “emergency.”
But the “emergency” lost its urgency as soon as the DNC adjourned and the media spotlight disappeared. Six months passed before the first meeting of the task force, which by then had been downgraded to a “working group.”
The working group’s convener (selected by Martin) is James Zogby, a longtime advocate for Palestinian rights. Zogby had greeted Martin’s task-force announcement with praise, calling it “politically thoughtful” and a recognition of “the reality that the status quo has become unacceptable and untenable.”
But more than six months later, the status quo remains undisturbed as the DNC’s Middle East Working Group proceeds at a snail’s pace. And the composition of the eight-member panel makes it foreseeably incapable of reaching its purported goal to “help us sort out how our party deals with America’s policies in the Middle East.”
The working group is an oil-and-water mix of fully incompatible views on Palestinian rights and Israeli power. Some on the DNC panel want an embargo on US arms to Israel, while others firmly oppose any such step. One member of the working group, Andrew Lachman, has led fights inside the California Democratic Party to thwart actions or statements critical of Israel. He is currently the president of Democrats for Israel-California.
How the DNC’s appointed group is supposed to “sort out” a Democratic Party position on US policy in the Middle East is inexplicable. But the project does have an evident function. The Middle East Working Group has proven itself to be a stalling mechanism. And the pretenses behind it have become even more fanciful as the US-Israel military alliance persists with a war of aggression on Iran that has been setting the region on fire.
No matter how much the DNC leadership tries to shunt it aside, the burning issue of US policy toward Israel will not go away. This year, it has become key in one Democratic primary race after another, putting incumbent members of Congress on the defensive for their timeworn efforts to justify support for Israel or acceptance of funding from the AIPAC lobby. Yet the DNC stance is that the party establishment is wise to seal itself off from such unpleasantness.
The DNC’s refusal to make public its autopsy of the 2024 election is tangled up in dodging the autopsy’s reported conclusion that Kamala Harris’ rigid support for arming Israel was a significant factor in her defeat. Keeping the official autopsy under wraps, supposedly in order to improve the prospects of future election victories, actually makes such victories less likely by mystifying instead of clarifying electoral history.
Martin told Fox News viewers in late February that concentrating on the future would be better than trying to “relitigate” the 2024 election. But hiding the autopsy amounts to condescension, assuming that only a small elite party circle should be privy to the results of the party’s extensive (and expensive) research. Many Democratic activists and candidates would benefit from candor instead of stonewalling.
Weeks ago, the annual convention of the California Democratic Party responded to growing pressure from grassroots activists by adopting a platform that advocates for “an immediate end to the mass civilian casualties, destruction, displacement and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.” The platform says that “Palestinians in Gaza should be able to rebuild without displacement, with international humanitarian, economic and security assistance,” and it calls for “the immediate rebuilding of Gaza with the provision of humanitarian aid, restoration of funding for an UNRWA that serves the Palestinian people.”
But the Democratic National Committee, like the bulk of Democrats in Congress, lags far behind such grassroots outlooks. The top-down culture that prevails in the national party has stultified internal debate, rendering it scarce and pro forma. Despite Martin’s reform talk, whatever the DNC chair says goes. “I’ve been more and more disappointed with him,” a progressive DNC member told me days ago. “He says he loves internal debate and small-d democracy. I think it’s a talking point. I don’t know that he really wants that.”
After a little more than a year in the job, Martin has cleared the low bar set by his immediate predecessor, Jaime Harrison, who dutifully served President Biden for four years. But the DNC is still largely paralyzed with pressure from its old guard and insistence on being unaccountable to the party’s rank-and-file. The Democratic Party is in dire need of democracy.
On no issue is that more apparent than the DNC’s insistence on treating Israel as above serious reproach. The ruse of forming and then slow-walking the Middle East Working Group may have bought some time for the Democratic Party’s status quo of complicity with genocide in Gaza and US-Israeli war crimes elsewhere in the region. But party activists genuinely committed to human rights will not be fooled and will not be silent.
US President Donald Trump speaks during a bilateral meeting with the Taoiseach of Ireland Micheál Martin in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on March 17, 2026.
(Photo by Jim Watson / AFP via Getty Images)
The absence of any US strategy becomes clearer by the day. Trump has thrown everything at the wall in the hope that something will stick. So far, nothing has.
By Steven Harper • Mar 18, 2026
President Donald Trump is a victim of his own success. After a quick strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities last June and the capture of Venezuela’s president and First Lady in January, the US military, the illegality of those operations notwithstanding, made war look easy and Trump feel omnipotent.
Three weeks into a more daunting excursion into Iran, Trump is now a desperate leader.
With Trump, everything is personal. A growing body of evidence suggests that a principal objective in attacking Iran was the assassination of the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. For example:
When the CIA learned that the Ayatollah and top Iranian officials would be meeting in a militarily accessible location, a previously planned nighttime strike was moved up to the middle of the day.
On Sunday night, March 1, shortly after reports that the US-Israeli attack had killed the Ayatollah, Trump said, “I got him before he got me.” He was referring to an alleged plot to kill Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign as retribution for the January 2020 US strike that killed Iran’s military leader Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps,
The desire to downplay Trump’s desire for vengeance explains why he and his minions have offered more noble—and contradictory—justifications for the war, including:
To help the Iranian people secure their freedom (Trump);
To attack Iran because Israel was going to do it and that would result in Iran’s attack on US assets in the Middle East (Secretary of State Marco Rubio);
To attack Iran first, not because Israel was going to do it anyway, but because Trump had a gut feeling that Iran was going to attack the US (Trump). But Pentagon officials informed Congress that no intelligence supported Trump’s opinion;
To eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability (although Trump claimed to have done that with the June attack).
Mission Accomplished?
Whatever his motivations, deploying the might of the military force was the beginning and the end of Trump’s thinking. He and his advisors are now flailing in the aftermath.
Iran has divided its global adversaries by holding the world’s economy hostage. Closing the Strait of Hormuz to the US and its allies sent world markets reeling as the price of oil increased by 40 percent and the price of gasoline in the US rose by almost $1.00 per gallon. Trump is trying to sell the line that such costs in the short run will pay off in the long run, but few are buying it.
Trump’s Desperate Ploys
The absence of any US strategy becomes clearer by the day. Trump has thrown everything at the wall in the hope that something will stick. So far, nothing has.
He floated a $20 billion insurance guarantee for ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz – but not everyone lives in Trump’s world in which everything has a price.
He suggested using US military escorts for the tankers but offered no timeline; the risks to US military personnel and equipment would be enormous.
He tried shaming oil tanker crews to “show some guts” and continue sailing through the Strait – even as tankers burst into flames when trying to do so. Maybe Trump should go first.
He pleaded with world leaders to join his “team” to reopen the Strait for shipping, saying, “Some are very enthusiastic about it, and some aren’t. Some are countries that we’ve helped for many, many years. We’ve protected them from horrible outside sources, and they weren’t that enthusiastic. And the level of enthusiasm matters to me.”
He ridiculed allies refusing his requests to join a war that he started without consulting them: “We have some countries where we have 45,000 soldiers, great soldiers, protecting them from harm’s way, and we have done a great job. And when we want to know, ‘Do you have any mine sweepers?’ ‘Well, would rather not get involved, sir.’”
He made threats that are not-so-veiled: “If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO.”
Attacking the Messenger
In a futile effort at damage control, Trump accused media outlets of dispensing “fake news” about the growing Iran debacle. They “should be brought up on charges of TREASON,” he posted. In the same tirade, he said that he was “thrilled to see Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), looking at the licenses of some of these Corrupt and Highly Unpatriotic ‘News’ Organizations.”
Hearing and heeding his master’s voice, Carr shared another Trump post criticizing news coverage of the Iran war and issued this hollow threat: “Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions - also known as the fake news - have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up... Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s lengthy criticism of Iran war coverage included a special message for CNN: “The sooner David Ellison [the son of billionaire Trump supporter Larry Ellison] takes over that network, the better.”
This much is certain: Trump will never take responsibility for any failure of his policies, including the Iran war. When his deportation operation became a scandal and one of his worst political liabilities, Kristi Noem became a casualty. If Trump’s Iran war continues to go badly, he’ll need another scapegoat. Hegseth has been living on borrowed time since the Signalgate scandal. He should have been fired long ago.
But make no mistake. Hegseth is just Trump’s useful idiot. This is and always has been Trump’s war. It began as his personal war of retribution, ignored predictable consequences for the world, and never had an endgame strategy.
And now it has gone terribly wrong.
Correction: An earlier version of this article indicated a $200 million insurance program, but that figure should have been $20 billion and has been updated.
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon on March 2, 2026 in Arlington, Virginia. Secretary Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine held the news conference to give an update on Operation Epic Fury.
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
It’s difficult to select one of Trump’s Cabinet members as the stupidest, but in the end the Secretary of Defense is in a class of stupidity completely his own.
By Robert Reich • Mar 16, 2026
At a press briefing on Friday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth complained about a CNN report that the Trump administration had underestimated Iran’s ability to disrupt global oil traffic by closing the Strait of Hormuz.
“Patently ridiculous,” Hegseth told reporters, adding — even as the strait’s blockage was proving to be Iran’s most powerful leverage in the war — we “don’t need to worry about it.” He also denied that the U.S. bombed the school where some 175 children were killed. Hegseth added that, as to CNN, “the sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.”
These remarks are remarkably stupid, on several levels.
First, CNN got it absolutely right in reporting that Trump’s national security team had underestimated Iran’s ability to disrupt global oil traffic. CNN cited “multiple sources familiar with the matter.”
Even TheWall Street Journal, hardly a New York Times or CNN clone, substantiated the story on Friday, reporting that Trump rejected warnings that Iran would likely retaliate by closing the strait because he believed Iran would capitulate before doing so, and he assumed that even if Iran tried to close it, the U.S. military could handle it.
Second, Hegseth’s comment that we “don’t need to worry about” the blockage of the strait is not only false but flippantly insulting to an American public that deserves to know what the Trump regime is planning to do about soaring prices at the gas pump, directly due to that blockage.
Third, even if Hegseth believes that David Ellison’s ownership of CNN will silence CNN’s critical coverage of Trump, it’s remarkably stupid of Hegseth to say it out loud. “The sooner David Ellison takes over CNN, the better” is an open admission that Trump backed Ellison’s bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, CNN’s parent, to silence criticism.
That deal is still pending, so Hegseth’s admission is likely to fuel even more opposition to it. California’s attorney general has already suggested he’ll go to court to block it. Now other attorneys general, the ACLU, and Democrats in Congress may join the case as co-plaintiffs.
Hegseth’s admission also confirms CNN’s worst fears that Ellison will throttle criticism of Trump — a fear that’s already caused several leading lights to exit. As Varietyput it, “Anderson, cooped. Jake, tapped. Erin, burnt. Kasie, hunted. Wolf, blitzed.”
Ellison has already proven himself an unreliable steward of journalistic independence at CBS News. One departing producer there explained in a farewell memo to colleagues that she could no longer work where stories are “evaluated not just on their journalistic merit, but on whether they conform to a shifting set of ideological expectations — a dynamic that pressures producers and reporters to self-censor or avoid challenging narratives that might trigger backlash or unfavorable headlines.”
Finally, Hegseth’s denial that the U.S. is responsible for the deaths of nearly 200 schoolchildren in Iran is belied by mounting evidence that the U.S. did bomb the school. Hegseth’s further insistence that the U.S. “never targets civilians” is refuted by the U.S. military’s killing of at least 157 people on 40 small boats in the Caribbean without evidence they were “narcoterrorists” rather than civilians.
And, friends, this was just one news conference.
Pete Hegseth’s job is so far over his head that he can’t even see it. He evidently believes it’s to cheerlead and defend Trump with bonkers claims like “We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump we’re finishing it” and “America is winning decisively, devastatingly, and without mercy” and “we will show no quarter for our enemies.” (“No quarter” means kill everyone and take no prisoners, which is a war crime.)
In the days leading up to the U.S. attack on Iran, Hegseth spent his time criticizing “wokeness” at American universities, feuding with Anthropic over safeguards for AI, and, in the day before the war began, forcing Scouting America to abandon programs aimed at promoting diversity.
He dismisses war crimes, pooh-poohs the rules of engagement, and projects unequivocal belligerence at a time when the United States is rapidly losing whatever moral standing it had in the world.
Granted, it’s difficult to select one of Trump’s Cabinet members as the stupidest. But Pete Hegseth stands out for sheer boneheaded ignorance.
US President Donald Trump (L) bids farewell to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he leaves the White House after a meeting on April 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
If not stopped soon, this war could easily turn into a global conflagration, effectively into World War III.
By Jeffrey D. Sachs,Sybil Fares • Mar 16, 2026
The Israel-US war on Iran is engulfing the entire Middle East and could escalate to global war. The economic consequences are already severe and could become catastrophic. The Strait of Hormuz carries approximately one-fifth of all oil traded globally, and 30 percent of the world’s LNG. A sustained closure of the Strait would trigger an energy shock without modern precedent.
The conflict is likely to spiral out of control because the US and Israel are dead set on hegemony in the Arab world and West Asia – one that combines Israeli territorial expansion with American-backed regime control across the region. The ultimate goal is a Greater Israel that absorbs all historic Palestine, combined with compliant Arab and Islamic governments stripped of genuine sovereignty, including on choices as to how and where they export their oil and gas.
This is delusional. No country across the region wants Israel to run wild as it is doing, murdering civilians across the entire region, destroying Gaza and the West Bank, invading Lebanon, striking Iraq and Yemen, and carpet-bombing Tehran. No country wants its hydrocarbon exports under effective US control. The war will end if and only if global revulsion at US and Israeli aggression force these countries to stop. Short of that, we are likely to see the Middle East in flames and the world in an energy and economic crisis unprecedented in modern history. The war could easily turn into a global conflagration, effectively into World War III.
Yet, there exists an alternative. The war could stop on rational grounds if Israel and the US are decisively called to account by the rest of the world. Ending the war requires a set of interlinked steps to provide basic security for all parties, and indeed for the world. Iran needs a permanent end to the US-Israel aggression. The Gulf countries need an end to Iran’s retaliatory strikes. The Palestinians need an independent state. Israel needs lasting security and the disarmament of Hamas and Hezbollah. The whole world needs the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and international monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program to ensure it abides by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as Iran says it wants to do. And all countries want, or should want, real sovereignty for themselves and their region.
We are not optimistic about the likelihood of our plan. The Israeli government is murderous and Trump is delusional about US power. We are perhaps already in the early days of WWIII. Yet because the stakes are so high, it’s worth laying out real solutions even if they are long shots.
Collective security could be achieved in five interconnected measures. First, the US and Israel would immediately end their armed aggression across the entire region and withdraw their forces. Second, Iran would stop its retaliatory strikes across the GCC and resubmit to monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency under a revised Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which President Trump recklessly abandoned in 2018. Third, the Strait of Hormuz would reopen with mutual agreement of Iran and the GCC. Fourth, the two-state solution would be immediately implemented by admitting Palestine as a full member state of the UN. Israel would be required to end its occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and Syria. Fifth, the UN recognition of the State of Palestine would form the basis for a comprehensive regional disarmament of all non-state actors, verified under international monitoring. The end result would be a return to international law and the UN Charter.
Who would win in this plan? The people of the region, of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the rest of the world. Who would lose? Only the backers of Greater Israel, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, and Mike Huckabee, who have brought the world to the brink of destruction.
Here are the five steps in more detail.
First: End the US-Israeli Armed Aggression.
Israel and the US would stop their aggression and withdraw their forces. In turn, Iran would cease its retaliatory strikes. This would not be a mere ceasefire. Rather, it would be the first step of an overall peace agreement and collective security arrangement.
Second: Return to the JCPOA.
The nuclear question would be resolved through strict monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, not through bombing campaigns that merely put Iran’s enriched uranium beyond international monitoring. The UN Security Council would immediately reinstate the basic framework of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), under which Iran must strictly comply with IAEA monitoring and agreed limits on its nuclear program, while economic sanctions on Iran would be lifted.
Third: Reopen the Strait of Hormuz in an Iran-GCC Framework
The Strait of Hormuz would be quickly reopened, with safe passage jointly guaranteed by Iran and the GCC. The GCC countries would assert sovereignty over the military bases in their countries to ensure that the bases would not be used as launchpads for renewed offensive strikes against Iran.
Fourth: The Two-State Solution.
The two-state solution would be implemented, by admitting Palestine into the UN as the 194th permanent member state. This requires nothing more than the US lifting its veto. Palestinian statehood is in accord with international law and with the Arab Peace Initiative, which has been on the table since 2002. In turn, the countries in the region would establish diplomatic relations with Israel, and the UN Security Council would introduce peacekeepers to ensure the security of both Palestine and Israel.
Fifth: An End to Armed Belligerency.
In conjunction with the two-state solution, all armed belligerency in the region would end forthwith, including the disarmament of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other armed non-state actors. In the case of Palestine, the disarmament of Hamas would underpin the authority of the Palestinian state. In the case of Lebanon, the disarmament of Hezbollah would restore Lebanon’s full sovereignty, with the Lebanese Armed Forces as the sole military authority in the country.
The disarmament would be verified by international monitors and guaranteed by the UN Security Council.
The key point is that the Israel-US war on Iran has not occurred in a vacuum. The Clean Break strategy, developed by Netanyahu and his American neocon backers in 1996, and implemented since then, calls for Israel to establish hegemony in the region through wars of regime change, with the US as the implementing partner. As NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark revealed after 9/11, the US drew up plans a quarter century ago to overthrow governments in seven countries: “starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” We are therefore living through the culmination of a long-standing plan by Israel and the US to dominate the Arab world and West Asia, create a Greater Israel, and permanently block Palestinian statehood.
We are not optimistic about the likelihood of our plan. The Israeli government is murderous and Trump is delusional about US power. We are perhaps already in the early days of WWIII. Yet because the stakes are so high, it’s worth laying out real solutions even if they are long shots. We do believe, however, that the non-Western world—the part that is not vassal states to US power—understands the urgency of peace and security.
Who, then, could champion a peace plan that the US and Israel will resist with every means at their disposal, until the weight of global opposition and economic catastrophe leaves them no choice but to accept it?
There is one main group, and that is the BRICS nations.
Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and the bloc’s expanded membership, which now includes the UAE, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Indonesia, represent approximately half of the world’s population and more than 40 percent of global GDP (compared to 28 percent for the vaunted but overblown G7 countries). The BRICS have the credibility, the economic weight, and the absence of the historical complicity in Middle East imperialism to bring the world to its senses. The BRICS should convene an emergency summit and present a unified framework incorporating the conditions for peace and security, which in turn would be pressed at the UN Security Council. There, world opinion would tell the US and Israel to stop pushing the world towards catastrophe, and would remind all countries to adhere to the UN Charter.
