At this point there have been more days of ceasefire than of military action since the Feb. 28 start of Operation Epic Fury. And today we hear that a Memorandum of Understanding (an MOU) is almost complete between Iran and the United States.

Details are still coming out and are probably not even agreed to by the signatories yet, but what we do know is that there will be a 60-day extension of the ceasefire. This will include an opening of the Strait of Hormuz and a lifting of the blockade on Iranian ports.

This will bring relief to Iran’s economy and probably the economy of so much of the world that relies upon shipments coming through the Strait. But it is hard to say. The economy hasn’t acted the way most economists predicted.

When the “military action” began in February, the most common and historically precedented expectation was that four things would happen:

1. Oil would at least double in price;

2. The stock market would crash;

3. Government bonds would rise in value;

4. Gold would soar in price.

These expectations followed what happened in other wars, especially in the areas of oil production. But that’s not what happened this time.

Oil was $67-$72 per barrel before the attack on Iran in February. Today it is $87-$92 per barrel. It was over $100 for much of that time, but even that was not near the $150-$200 prices some people were expecting. For those of us who have to fill our cars, we notice the rise in prices. That’s real. But this is nothing like what people legitimately expected.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was 48,977.92 on Feb. 27 and could reach over 51,000 at the close of trading today. The market has gone up over this period!

Bonds are up about half a percent (48-50 basis points) from 3.95%–3.97% to 4.44%–4.45%. Not huge.

But gold is the real surprise. Usually in times of economic uncertainty and especially times of war, gold rises in price because it is a secure investment, as are bonds. Gold dropped in price from $5,184 per ounce to $4,520–$4,550. What?

There has certainly been a lot of economic havoc wrought by the war, and especially more in other countries, but it hasn’t been what was expected. I point this out because this MOU seems to be intended to have an impact on the economy. Who knows if it will?

As I said, the ceasefire has lasted longer than the fire, so there isn’t much “war” going on at the moment. Yes, there have been some missiles and drones out of Iran. And some of the Gulf states have attacked sites in Iran as a response. But the US has not reengaged in anything like the fashion it did at the beginning. The real “fight” now is economic, and most of that is about which side can hold out longer.

Almost everyone was wrong about the economic effects of the bombing of Iran. How do we know what the extended ceasefire and opening of the Strait will do? Of course, it seems logical to assume that allowing all those tankers to move freely through the Strait will be good for the economy. But it was also logical to think a major war in the Middle East would be really bad.

If the intention of the MOU is to jump start the economy and it doesn’t work, what happens then? We just assume it will work, but what if we’re wrong? Given how poorly economists predicted the results of war, I’m not sure we can be confident about the results of peace. If it doesn’t have the desired effect, that raises a whole lot of questions about what to do next.

China presents extra complications. All people traveling with the President will have to leave all their electronic devices at home. China hacks all phones the moment they are turned on in their country and take all information into their spy services.

There are several big issues on their agenda.

Economy and Trade

China and the US are the two most important economies in the world and both are under pressure from the war military engagement in Iran. China is officially a Communist country, but it has had a somewhat free market since Deng Xiaoping opened its market economy in 1978.

This has accelerated remarkably under Xi Jinping, the current leader. His legitimacy is bound up with the amazing rise in the Chinese economy. The problem is that the economy is slowing down. Part of this is a feature of current events, but much more has to do with intrinsic issues within the Chinese economy.

China’s economy jumped to world prominence because it could provide American and European corporations very cheap production facilities. China was willing to build any factory under any conditions, ignoring environmental regulations we impose on ourselves. They have a highly educated and disciplined workforce that has been developed over thousands of years of Chinese culture. The Communist regime is also indifferent (as all Communist regimes have been) to the working conditions of their people. China became the sweatshop of the world.

But Xi has been trying to transition the economy to higher profits and higher-end products. The most important of these at the moment are its electric vehicles. They are being produced well below the price of any others in the world and are flooding markets in Europe. The US is trying to keep them out of the country, not only to protect its own car manufacturers.

Electric vehicles are among the most sophisticated machines ever made. Part of their sophistication is the array of sensory abilities and video recording, both used in self-driving capabilities. But to make self-driving work, they have to send this information back to the home company. That means every Chinese car is recording full time every road, every light, every person walking down a street, every business, police car and every piece of infrastructure in the country. You don’t have to be paranoid to get suspicious.

Much of China’s rise has come at the expense of the US economy and the economies of other western countries. Almost everything that was once made in the USA is now made in China. Trump wants to reverse that, so there is an inherent tension between the two countries. His promise to his voters has been that he would undo the offshoring of industries that have hollowed out the industrial center of the country. There has been a little progress in that regard, but not a lot.

Strait of Hormuz and Iran

President Trump is under pressure to get the war over with and get gas prices down because he is facing a midterm election in November. The bombing of Iran has not been popular with the American people and the polls show that. How much longer can he hold on to this policy? That’s the question for Trump.

Premier Xi isn’t under any electoral pressure, but most of his country’s oil and gas comes from the Middle East. To keep the economic miracle of China going, which is his only claim to legitimate rule, requires that he gets the spice gas flowing. As a key ally, perhaps the key ally, Xi will have a lot of influence with Iran. If China abandons the mullahs, they have no one to turn to.

Diplomacy between China and the USA could end the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. That would be a great economic relief to both parties, but probably a bigger diplomatic win for Trump than Xi. Opening the Strait would mean abandoning another Chinese ally. After the uncontested arrest of Maduro from Venezuela, China would not look like much of a friend.

But does Xi care? In an era of power politics when nations are sorting themselves out into regions, what does friendship mean? Survival is the question.

Russia and Ukraine

The US and China are allies to the opposite sides in this war, but each in a tepid way.

The US abandoned Ukraine to its own devices when Russia was preparing to attack in 2022. Pres. Biden removed all Americans from the country, more or less giving his go ahead to Putin to invade. (He should have sent Harris over there and dared Putin to attack a country with a sitting vice president visiting.)

China hasn’t done much to help Russia except buy its oil at a discount. Not really huge support. More like taking advantage of the situation.

So in a way the two major powers on earth are spectators of this conflict, and it is easy to see why. Would China want to go to war with Ukraine and, theoretically, Europe to fulfill Putin’s historiographic argument about where the people of the Rus began? Unlikely.

And the American position has traditionally been to allow Russia to wear itself out. Both China and the US are also gaining invaluable information about new ways of war, especially drone warfare.

Europe has the real interest in all of this, but it is hard to see what outcome would be best for it. A Russian victory would not be good and would scare them. But a Ukrainian victory (whatever that might look like) is hardly better. When Europeans can barely field a few tanks on a weekday, do they really want over 100 battalions of battle-hardened Slavs taking a victory lap?

Taiwan

The elephant in the room—or the dragon—is Taiwan. In 1949, the losing side in the Chinese Civil War fled to the island of Formosa. The leader of the Nationalists, Chiang Kai-shek, set up his government on the island and changed its name to Taiwan. It was officially recognized as “China” at the United Nations until 1971, even sitting as the permanent member of he Security Council. Martial law was in effect on the island until 1987 and it did not have its first presidential election until 1996. In the meantime, it became the most important semiconductor manufacturing center in the world. (Don’t ask me how.)

It has always been an ambition of the Communist Chinese to take back the island and reunite the Chinese people. As with all Communist revolutions, China quickly changed its way of motivating its people from visions of worldwide revolutions to blood and soil patriotism. Taiwan stands as affront to these ideas.

The US has held an ambiguous position towards Taiwan. The US won’t call it “China” and it won’t declare that we will go to war to protect the island, but we have troops stationed there and a whole lot of naval assets hanging around. Will we or won’t we? That’s the question.

The Taiwanese are in an awkward place. China and the US get their most sophisticated chips from them. That’s another reason why China wants it and one of the main reasons America protects it. But as the US returns industry to the country (and there is a big Taiwanese chip manufacturer setting up here), Taiwan become less important to Americans.

Xi could be thinking about letting more factories return to the US to make Trump happy but also weaken American ties to the island. Would he abandon Iran for this? Could his economy sustain the hit? This is what statesmanship is about.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the referendum on redistricting violated the Virginia Constitution. The “lobster district” is no more.

Republicans took the referendum to court earlier this year and the state (under the instruction of the newly elected Democratic governor) argued that there was no point to hearing the case because if the referendum failed, there would be nothing to consider. They argued that the Court is only supposed to rule on actions of the state, not on proposed actions that might not even happen.

That argument prevailed, but they lost the case after the referendum passed. And so the referendum was overturned and VA will not have any changes to the Congressional districts.

The left has not taken this well. One proposal is to lower the mandatory retirement age of Supreme Court justices to 53. (The youngest of the justices who ruled that the referendum was unconstitutional is 53 years old.) Everyone would be forced into retirement and the governor could appoint new justices.

Redistricting and the Midterms

The reaction is all because of two features of the modern House of Representatives. First, the House race in November is so close. Second, so few seats are competitive.

The Republicans are currently in control of the House, but with only the slimmest of majorities. There are 435 seats in the House, so a majority should be 218. But the Republicans have only 217 seats. How are they the majority? There are currently 5 vacancies, so the effective majority is 216. That’s close! A couple missed flights or a bad casserole and the Republicans could lose a vote.

What about competitiveness? Well, most House seats aren’t at all competitive. Only 10-15 are currently listed as “tossups,” meaning that either party has a similar chance of winning. If you really stretch the definition you might get as many as 40 that are competitive. But there’s really only a small number of the 435 that could go to either party.

That’s why redistricting is so important. It is easier for Virginia Democrats, for instance, to gerrymander their way to a House majority than win elections. Or so they thought.

The irony is that the high profile efforts of Virginia’s redistricting referendum (Obama campaigned for it, which is a highly unusual thing for a former president to do) led to counter-efforts in Republican states, which actually worked. Virginia made it a lot easier, although far from guaranteed, for the Republicans to retain control of the House in November.

As we have mentioned before, the Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandering for racial outcomes is illegal. There are several districts that were established for this very purpose, and Tennessee, Florida, Louisiana, and a few other Southern states have immediately redistricted with the purpose of undoing these districts.

Again, we are talking about a very small number of seats. A few changes here and there could change the election. Of course, there are some limits to gerrymandering. For instance, the smallest states have only one member of the House, so the state is the district and those boundaries can’t be changed. Others, such as Massachusetts present a different problem.

Although 40% of Massachusetts citizens voted for Donald Trump in the last election, there is not a single Republican member of the House from the Commonwealth. Has it been gerrymandered? Hard to say. Republicans are scattered throughout the population, with no single area coming up with enough people to form a congressional district. Getting a Republican district in Massachusetts would require efforts that old Elbridge Gerry couldn’t imagine.

Redistricting is demanded by the Constitution because the population is counted every ten years in the census, so it can’t be avoided. And there is no non-partisan way to carve out districts. You can’t drop a grid on a state and expect to get each square to contain an equal number of citizens. Someone has to move the lines.

Get used to it.

Strait of Hormuz

Deja vu all over again. Some ships are getting through. Some aren’t. There are conflicting words and actions coming out of Iran, so it’s unclear who might be running things there. Iran even suggested they have trained dolphins ready to engage in suicide bombing raids. OK.

Oil and natural gas stockpiles continue to decline in Europe and Asia. Without their own sources, self-inflicted on the part of Europe, things are only going to get worse there. Some countries in Asia are cancelling internal flights, closing schools and universities early, and imposing curfews because they cannot light their streets at night. Australia is said to have only 30 days of jet fuel left in the country. Without it, they will be cut off from the rest of the world

Midterm Elections

Because the US is energy independent, the effects of blockages in the Strait of Hormuz are largely muted. We might be seeing gas well above $4/gallon, but we won’t have to impose any of the measures being contemplated in other countries. So the real point of pressure is the election in November. Will Pres. Trump try to find a way to get out of the Hormuz problem before people start voting in just a few months?

To recall, all seats in the House of Representatives will be up for election and about one third of Senate seats. The House is significant because if Democrats gain control they will almost certainly spend the remaining two years of Trump’s presidency impeaching him and every member of his administration. The Senate is the place where an impeachment trial would take place, but the swings there are less dramatic.

Economic problems continue to pull down Pres. Trump’s approval ratings and the chances of the Republicans retaining the House. They might even lose the Senate. But never underestimate the ability of political parties to sabotage themselves. The Democrats as a party are polling below even Pres. Trump. And they are not hitting the high notes with some of their nominees.

In Maine, the longstanding Republican senator is Susan Collins. She is generally on the furthest left end of the Republican spectrum. She has been a thorn in Pres. Trump’s side for years. But as a Republican in a rather liberal state, she is vulnerable. The Democrats, however, have seen fit to push forward on their side an avowed Communist with a Nazi tattoo, Graham Platner. He has the very same image that is at the center of the Mitchell and Webb skit, “Are we the baddies?”

The popular and un-tattooed current governor of Maine challenged Platner but could not get traction. So this is the man Collins gets to run against.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed is tied in the Democratic nomination race for senate. He is a very open supporter of Palestinian causes and anti Israel. At a time of war in the Middle East and active antisemitism in the Democratic party, this could be a real risky move.

Redistricting

Both parties are trying to squeeze out as many seats for themselves as they can in continued redistricting in a number of states. California, Texas, and Florida have all made changes to their maps to benefit the party currently in power.

Virginia passed a new map that added heavily Democratic parts of the DC suburbs to rural districts in an attempt to flip them. The most notorious is the “Lobster District.” Elbridge Gerry would be proud.

The new map is being challenged in court, so it might not go through. But if it does, it would take a state that currently has 6 Democrats and 5 Republicans in the US House to one with 10 Democrats and 1 Republican (assuming voting patterns remain constant).

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled that district lines drawn with the intention of producing a particular racial makeup are unconstitutional. While the Voting Rights Act dates from 1965, the provisions about majority-minority districts (districts drawn so that the majority of the population is black, for the most part) was added in 1982.

Would eliminating these districts make much of a difference? That is disputed. Take, for instance, Tennessee’s 9th district. TN-9 is a heavily black district in Memphis, but it has elected a white man, Steve Cohen, every election since 2007. He is being challenged by a black man running on the Republican ticket. So is this about race or party? That’s important, because the Court says gerrymandering with racial intent is unconstitutional, but gerrymandering for political or partisan intent is not.

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani, I hope, will go down in history as one of the greatest mayors of the greatest city in the country. He was mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001, during a period of remarkable transformation. He is currently in hospital in Florida and looks likely to pass soon.

New York, along with many American cities, became ravaged by crime from the 1970s through the 1990s. Giuliani, who was a US Attorney and prosecutor before becoming mayor, took a tough on crime position. In effect, this meant arresting and prosecuting criminals rather than looking for “root causes” of crime. The transformation of New York was amazing.

He was also the mayor of the city during the World Trade Center terrorist attacks of 9/11. His strong leadership during this time earned him the title of “America’s Mayor,” and added to his reputation. He was talked about as a presidential candidate for a while. The current mayor of NYC could not be more different.

His subsequent history was not so kind to his reputation. He worked for and with Pres. Trump, then turned against him, then back again, and again. As with many who have tried to publicly spat with Trump, Giuliani suffered far more than his target, regardless of his personal merits. Sic transit gloria mundi. We can pray for him and thank him for what he did for New York.

For context, the WHCD is an annual event that started in 1921. The journalists host a dinner with the sitting president where the atmosphere is meant to be light and humorous. Presidents usually make funny speeches, often written by professional comedians.

Pres. Trump refused to attend during his first term because of his tense relationship with the press. It should also be remembered that in 2011, Pres. Obama used much of his speech to make fun of Donald Trump. Many have suggested that this was the moment The Donald decided to run for president. So he has a history with the event.

It is hard to get a sense of the size of the event. There were over 2,500 people gathered for a sit-down dinner with many of the most famous and powerful people in the country. Security was tight, but clearly not tight enough.

It takes place in the Washington Hilton, which is an active hotel and has a massive ballroom in the basement. It is also the hotel Pres. Reagan was leaving when he was shot and almost killed in 1981. The assassin was able to book a room in the hotel soon after the President announced that he would be attending the dinner. This gave him access to most spaces in the hotel. He traveled by train from California, apparently doing so to avoid TSA because he was carrying several guns with him.

Do you remember the problem with funding for the Department of Homeland Security? Still going on. TSA and the Secret Service are both funded through DHS, so the agents that subdued the assassin are getting paid (we hope!) on an emergency basis only. This ongoing funding problem will no doubt become a point of contention when talking about this security lapse.

What we know of the shooter so far is that he was a 31 year old SAT tutor and teacher, highly educated, and of mixed race. In something of a manifesto, he cited the usual charges against the President that one might find in the New York Times, on CNN, or anywhere on social media. It is important to note that his ideas are not particularly out of the mainstream of even the moderate left. His actions were, but…

Look at the survey result below:

The younger and more liberal the respondents, the more accepting they are of supporting violence. 1/4 of young liberals is not yet a majority of the population, but as we’ve seen with this and the other two assassination attempts, it does not take more than a small number of radicalized (and radicalized by “mainstream” ideas, if that makes sense) to try to kill a president.

As the saying goes: they don’t kill you because they call you a Nazi, they call you a Nazi so they can kill you.

From I.C.E to N.I.C.E

There is a meme on the internet in which a science fiction author writes a novel about some world-destroying machine as a warning to everyone, only to be followed by an announcement by engineers who are proud of having made this same world-destroying machine. It’s funny because it keeps happening. And it’s not funny.

Now, for fans of C.S. Lewis, he is getting caught up in this. That Hideous Strength is one of my favorite novels, but as a warning not a how-to document.

In steps Pres. Trump.

In an effort to change the image of immigration officers, he has suggested adding “National” to the name of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. He said he wants to force journalists to use the word “nice” when they refer to it.

There is another meme on the internet, inspired by a photo of an exhausted and discouraged Ben Affleck standing outside smoking a cigarette. That’s as background to the image below. If you’ve read the Lewis novel, you get the joke.

Negotiations between the US and Iran are on again and then off again. I haven’t revisited this issue because every time something seems to have happened (either starting talks or ending them) someone plays the Uno reverse card and the opposite happens.

Even as I was writing this, the President texted a reporter suggesting that the talks may be on again. Who knows? The problem is that, having killed most of the Iranian political leadership, we and probably they have no idea who is actually in charge of the country.

Another update while writing: Trump asked the Iranians to halt the scheduled execution of eight women protestors. It seems they have complied. Four will be released and the other four held in prison for a month. Does this mean the Iranians are responsive? Or is this one part of the remaining pseudo-leadership that will be reversed by the other part? I hope we hear soon that the woman are OK.

Meanwhile, the blockade continues and very little oil and gas is getting out of the region. Europe is reporting that it has only 7 weeks of jet fuel remaining and is already cancelling short flights for commercial airlines. I have a personal interest in flights to and from Austria, as many of you know, so I’m watching this very closely.

At this point the whole thing hangs on who can hold out longest.

The US has a lot of domestic oil, so Trump might be worried about the midterm elections but gas probably won’t go up too much. Oil is currently trading between $90-$96 per barrel. And the stock market is a little up and down, but certainly not in a bad way at the moment. Dow Jones Industrial Average is around 49,000, S&P 500 is around 7,000, and the Nasdaq is about 24,000. Historically, these are huge numbers.

Iran is missing out on something like $500 million a day. That’s got to hurt. But do they care? They would probably be happy to let the entire population starve to death if they could only fulfill their Islamic ideology. But they will run up against the fact that oil wells, once stopped or paused, are very hard to start up again. The inability to export their oil will, very soon, impose a huge cost on their ability to have an oil export industry at all. Unless they really do plan on blowing themselves up, this has to be a constraint on their actions.

The rest of the world is caught in between. China gets a lot of oil from Iran, as does most of Asia. Australia is almost dry. Europe also relies on oil and gas from the Middle East and Russia, which makes things awkward. Pres. Trump and Premier Xi of China are supposed to meet in person sometime soon. (It keeps getting rescheduled.) Will they want this all settled before their meeting?

The Europeans don’t have many cards to play. They need American support for the war in Ukraine and they don’t have the military resources to play any role in the Middle East. They gave up their oil and nuclear (except France) resources within the last few years and can’t turn that around quickly. And yet they are insisting on policies meant to frustrate the American war efforts, such as denying access to their airspace and even American bases in their countries.

DHS Still Unfunded

Remember the whole partial government shutdown thing? It’s still a thing. DHS has been limping along after the President moved money from one budget line to another as an emergency stopgap so employees could get paid. That’s coming to an end, but no one seems to be talking about it. Are both sided bluffing? I don’t know what happens under these circumstances.

Religion and Politics

For years there has been an effort to separate religion and politics, as if they have nothing to do with one another. There were times when this might have worked, but those times were characterized by a broad consensus on both religion and politics. That consensus, if it ever really existed, no longer holds.

We have considered the contretemps between the Pope and the President already. It seems to be receding into the background. There is still a great deal of distance between the two men, but they seem to have each come to the realization that open hostility is in neither one’s interests.

Recently, however, an Israeli soldier was photographed (by another IDF soldier who posted the image in apparent approval) destroying a crucifix in Lebanon. The image received swift condemnation from the American Ambassador to Israel and was condemned by the Israeli president and prime minister. The soldiers involved have been arrested. But it is a stark reminder that hostility across and between religious groups is real and can become very ugly.

Those soldiers were in Lebanon because Israel is currently attacking Hezbollah. Lebanon was a Christian country for the first half of the 20th Century, but Muslim immigration (including Palestinians) led to a civil war from 1975-1990 that saw the emigration of many Christians. Hezbollah formed in 1982 after Israel invaded the country in order to remove the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from its position in Lebanon. The very next year they used suicide bombers to kill 307 American Marines and French soldiers.

After the civil war, Hezbollah increased its political influence, even having a role in parliament and the cabinet. But its purpose was always to use Lebanon as a staging ground for attacks on Israel. Most of its funding and support came from Iran and it was seen as a proxy of the Islamic Republic. Their ties were very close because both are part of the Shia branch of Islam. Until Oct. 7, Hezbollah was considered far more dangerous than Hamas.

Back home, Israel and Islam are the centerpiece of politics in the Democratic party. As primary races continue in advance of the midterm elections this November, the party is making a hard shift. Several nominees for Senate races are embracing hard anti-Israel positions, and one is a Muslim. Polls also show that young Democrats have a worse opinion of Israel than they do of China or Iran. This is a big shift for a party that was supported by the vast majority of Jews in the US.

You can throw nature out with a pitchfork, but it always comes back (Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret - Horace). When religion comes back into politics, it wields the pitchfork.

Christian Persecution in Nigeria

The most tragic and horrifying persecution is continuing in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed in this one country, where the vast majority of all crowns of martyrdom are being won on the earth today. Pray for them.

As you will recall, the term “Avignon Papacy” refers to the period of 1309-77 during which seven popes established their court in France rather than Rome. It was the result in part of French influence over the papacy, legitimate fear of the German emperors invading Rome, and the very involved politics of the period. (Just to give a taste, the Crusades were still going on, the Hundred Years War between France and England was beginning, and Dante was writing his Divine Comedy.) St. Catherine of Sienna was influential in personally convincing the pope to return to Rome.

Probably unfairly to the seven popes, the period was also characterized as the “Babylonian Captivity” and it was assumed that the popes were the puppets of the French kings. That didn’t really happen until after the popes returned to Rome and “pretender popes” were elected in Avignon. And this doesn’t even give you a hint of how complicated it all was.

Anyway, the reference was certainly intended to suggest that the Church could be controlled by the most powerful government on the planet. Wow! And given that the Renaissance started during this period, it could be a good time for artists. (Pres. Trump’s heavy-on-the-gold renovations of the Oval Office are now looking really on point.)

Well, it didn’t happen. The Avignon Papacy did happen, but the Vatican confirmed that there was no such heated conversation and certainly no threat about moving the Pope to Florida. (Although his brother does live there and is a big supporter of the President. So don’t count it out.)

Everything smoothed over and cooler heads prevailed.

BUT NO!

You guessed it, Pres. Trump took to Truth Social.

Rather than go through it all on my own, I’ll leave it to two of my friends who are much more qualified to deal with the details.

Phil Lawler's Substack

Who started the Trump 'feud' with the Pope?

Responding to my analysis of confrontation between Pentagon officials and Cardinal Pierre, @MarkSimonHK wrote on X that “Lawler is more open than I am about the role of @Pontifex…” (This was before Trump’s personal assault on the Pope on Truth Social.) Actually I…

Read more

2 months ago · 24 likes · Phil Lawler

and

The Sayable

Behind The Headlines

Pope Leo’s comment on the plane today, “I have no fear of the Trump administration,” stuck out at me because it is unusual for a Pope to call out a politician by name…

Read more

2 months ago · 2 likes · Delia Buckley Gallagher

In short, Pope Leo expressed his (not surprising) position that the war in Iran is wrong and that diplomacy and discussion should have continued. Responding with the presence of mind and self-control of a honey badger that had been dropped into a nest of fire ants, Donald Trump took to Truth Social and has doubled-down in subsequent statements to the press. (The Pope’s side has also been out with an interview on 60 Minutes with three, shall we say, controversial Cardinals. And Pres. Clinton’s political advisor met with the Pope just before all this began.)

Trump’s lack of equanimity surprised everyone, everyone, that is, who has been living under a rock for the past ten years. At this point had he responded in a statesmanlike manner the world would have stopped on its axis.

Statesmanship

From the moment he descended the golden escalator to declare his intention to run for office, The Donald’s seeming indifference to the words he uses has caused nothing but confusion. Is he really that crazy? Half the country says he is, and the other half says he isn’t. (The rest of the world, by the way, is certain that he is.) He seems intent on driving people mad.

To make the contrast more clear between his words and his deeds, let’s sum up a number of events that, in hindsight, start to make sense:

1. In April 2025, the Trump administration formed a security agreement with Panama after threatening to take it over by force. This effectively removed Chinese influence from this important waterway, an influence that was growing quickly.

2. On January 3, 2026 American forces captured the Venezuelan (not recognized by most countries) president and his wife to face trial in New York. The surviving government is now working very closely with the US. This after China was getting oil from Venezuela at below market prices because the country was sanctioned and could not sell on the open market. Venezuela is estimated to have the largest oil reserves in the entire world. China was able to buy this oil in its own currency and not US dollars.

3. Subsequent pressure and blockade of Cuba has led to negotiations and the release of several thousand political prisoners by the Communists.

4. The February 28 attack on Iran and now blockade of its ports has shut down oil exports from the Gulf, which China relies on. China was also able to buy this oil at below market rates and in its own currency rather than in US dollars.

5. Both the operations in Venezuela and Iran have shown the hollowness of Chinese defense systems, resulting in the demotion, disappearance, and death of many top military officials and defense engineers in China. This significantly reduces the potential of an attack on Taiwan.

6. An agreement between the US and Indonesia was announced this week (although signed in February, interestingly) that strengthens trade and military ties between the two countries.

Here’s a map that might start to make sense of the moves above:

The Trump administration has secured for itself or rendered impassible almost all the major trading chokepoints in the world (Panama, Hormuz, Malacca, Mindoro, Makassar, and Lombok), and certainly the most important ones for China. It has undone the efforts at “de-dolarization” of the oil markets, securing the US dollar as the sole means for trading the most important commodity in the world. (There are some significant economic advantages to this that I won’t get into.)

I could just be reading into these events, but they do seem intentional. They do seem coordinated. But I’ll agree that they don’t seem compatible with posting AI generated memes of oneself as Jesus and then saying, no, I just thought it was a picture of me as a doctor working for the Red Cross. (No, really. This happened.)

Trump at Canossa?

In 1077, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV knelt in the snow at the castle of Canossa in northern Italy, begging for pardon from Pope Gregory VII. Their dispute was over who was allowed to appoint bishops. (A secret agreement with China—yes, them again—was made under Pope Francis regarding this very issue.) Gregory had excommunicated Henry, which brought him to repent.

Again, only those living under a rock could imagine Donald Trump asking forgiveness from anyone. By all measures he should, however. His words were intemperate and unbefitting a man of his position. But it won’t happen.

Perhaps this is another job for Marco Rubio.

Until last Friday everything has more or less been on the same trajectory as the last few weeks. But then the pilot and weapons office of an American F-15E were forced to eject deep in Iran. (Details of why are largely restricted because revealing how it was shot, if it was shot, would or could help other countries learn of its vulnerabilities. That’s why I’m being vague. [Not that Chinese spies are reading DNN. I don’t know what happened.])

The pilot was rescued quickly, but the other airman was not. His parachute took him further away. The process of getting him back was immense. They flew two cargo planes onto a disused Iranian airstrip. Secured the area. Unloaded helicopters from the planes. Flew them to rescue the officer. He, meanwhile, followed his training and scrambled several miles from his landing site, climbed steep terrain, and contacted help. All this while being hunted by Iranians.

So his rescue was a real achievement.

Meanwhile, Pres. Trump was on Truth Social. I wish I could stop there, but duty requires that I press on.

The President truthed (?) several threats to the Iranians using the kind of language I can’t reproduce here. It was vulgar in the extreme. He also threated to “bomb Iran back to the stone age” and destroy their civilization, promising that it would never recover. He even wrote, “Praise Allah” in one of the threats. Huh?

Our friend Phil Lawler has been writing about just war principles. You don’t need to do a deep dive into Vittoria to know that what Pres. Trump was threatening crosses the line.

While some have pointed out that these threats are the kind that Iran has thrown at the US and Israel for years, it does sound different coming from the one country in the world that could actually do it. [Apologies to the Chinese spies, but the performance of their weapons systems in Venezuela and Iran suggest they remain a few steps behind the US.]

Others suggest that this is all part of his “madman” approach to negotiations. There is a lot of evidence that because no one knows how far he will actually go, foreign leaders take his threats very seriously. So he set an 8:00pm Tuesday deadline for the Iranians, after which he would destroy every bridge and power station in the country.

We now have a two week ceasefire.

Perhaps years from now we will know if his public threats worked to broker the agreement. But we don’t know if the Iranians even have access to the internet at this point. They might not have known about the Truth Social threats. We have no idea.

Nevertheless, the ceasefire is going to allow the two sides to negotiate a more permanent solution and, very importantly, tankers will be able to sail through the Strait. There is still a lot to be worked out, but this is a very positive development.

One question in all of this is whether the Iranians doing the negotiations (brokered through Pakistan) have control of the military. Can they keep their men from firing missiles? Do they have a way to even get orders to the guys hidden in bunkers? We hope.

The other question is whether our allies agree. Not just Israel, but several of the Gulf states are now at war with Iran. I read this morning that the United Arab Emirates bombed positions in Iran. Does that break the ceasefire?

Let’s hope the ceasefire holds and a solution can be reached. The latest “truth” from the President says the Iranians have agreed to allow the US to extract all their nuclear weapons materials from the country. Big if true, as the kids say.

Let’s say a real Hail Mary for this one.

Birthright Citizenship

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on the case of Trump v. Barbara. The Court has had written arguments from both sides and from amici curiae (literally friends of the court, legal opinions from people not directly involved in the case). Today is the one chance for both sides to present their arguments in person and for the justices to ask questions. It can (sometimes) give an indication of what the members of the court are thinking.

For the first time in history a sitting president will also be there to listen. There is, of course, no reason for him not to do so. The justices are not the kind of people to be intimidated.

We have discussed the issue of birthright citizenship before and its relation to the Fourteenth Amendment. What is interesting is just how far the argument has moved from only a year ago.

Almost no one would have thought this issue was up for debate. But now it is a tossup. The Court really could rule either way. It is an astonishing development.

DHS Funding

It looks like there is a deal to completely fund the Department of Homeland Security. Large parts of it (ICE has been funded separately) have been without funding for six weeks. Travelers needing to go through TSA at airports should be very happy.

Politicians on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, will claim victory and their party members will probably claim defeat. It is a victory insofar as something actually got done. The Democrats didn’t get ICE defunded or abolished, so large parts of their party will be upset. The Republicans didn’t get the country to blame the Democrats for the shutdown, so their party will complain that it was a missed opportunity to cause them pain.

Moon Shot

Tonight NASA launched a rocket to take American astronauts further into space than ever before. They won’t land on the moon. That will come later. But they will go around it and prepare for the next few missions that will eventually land back on the moon.

For anyone born after 1972, this will be the first time in your lives that anyone will have made this trip. The last mission was Apollo 17 on Dec. 7, 1972.

There should be some amazing pictures. Here is a visual of their ten day (10 day!) mission:

Iran

OK, so this is the big one. Everyone is wondering what is going on there. As before, more of the same.

Israel is racking up a long list of Iranian officials they have killed. We really haven’t seen anything like this before, where the military and political leadership has been eliminated in such numbers.

The only other historical analogy, and it is imperfect, is from the Anabasis of Xenophon. This tells the story of 10,000 Greek mercenaries stranded behind enemy lines after their employer, Cyrus the Younger, is killed in battle. Their generals were called to a treaty with the Persians where they were all killed. Leaderless, the 10,000 had to fight their was back to Greece.

OK, I said it was an imperfect analogy, but you have to like the fact that I get to mention Xenophon and that all this took place in the same location as the war right now.

Some ships are getting through the Strait of Homuz, which suggests there are no mines. Some ships are paying Iran $2 million for safe passage. This suggests that there are Iranians in control of the military forces stationed to shut the Strait. Someone is asking for the money. Someone is getting the money. And someone has enough control to make sure nothing happens to the ships that paid the money.

All this brings us to the reports, claims, counter-claims, and denials about talks between the US and Iran. There might, or might not, be conversations about either ending the war, opening the Strait, neither, or something else entirely.

The President is scheduled to speak to the nation at 9:00pm Eastern time tonight. I’m going to try to post this before the address so I don’t have to change everything I’ve written. Then I’ll probably post again tomorrow when we know what he said.

Iran Implications

Since I can’t report on what the President is going to say, I may as well bring you up to speed on the implications of the Iran bombing. And all we’ve done so far is drop bombs, fire missiles, and use drones. That is significant.

Here at home the President’s approval has been dropping like a stone. There has not been a “rally ‘round the flag” effect. MAGA still loves him. Democrats are tearing their (pink) hair out. And lots of people in the middle are frustrated with rising gas prices.

Countries in Asia are desperate for oil. None of the major countries in Asia have oil or natural gas, so almost every bit is imported from the Middle East. Australia does have both but has stopped all extraction for environmental reasons. They even shut their one refinery, which means they have to import even more expensive refined oil. They have enough left in the country for only a few weeks, if that.

Europe is in a similar situation. France has a lot of nuclear power, so it can at least produce electricity. This is not true of much of the rest of the continent. There are calls for people to reduce their driving, stay home, and even work from home. Rationing and enforced closure of businesses is likely if things continue.

Europe is not happy, and they are not keeping that a secret. Spain has refused to allow American military planes to use its airspace. Italy has refused to allow them to use bases there.

In response, Pres. Trump has threatened to withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has bound the nations of the West together since the beginning of the Cold War. Its purpose has been described as keeping the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. It doesn’t seem to be doing any of those things at the moment. But the President can’t do anything about this. Congress passed a law expressly forbidding presidents from removing the country from NATO.

With all this going on the speech tonight is going to be interesting. If there is some sort of quick resolution the economy could get back on track quickly. If, on the other hand, the President will announce further escalation and maybe the landing of ground troops on Iranian soil, it is hard to think of many people who will be happy with that. But if it works…

Everyone loves a winner. And depending on the way it is resolved, if it is resolved, one of the largest oil producers in the world and most strategic sites on the planet (between China and the Mediterranean) will be taken out of the Chinese and Russian orbit and placed firmly in the American.

High risk. High reward. And let’s not forget that this is all in the context of a midterm election this year.

But in plain shock and even play of battle,
Was ever known so great and little loss
On one part and on th’ other? (Henry V, IV.8 113-15)

But this is not over and terrible things can still happen.

What We Know

As I’ve already said, the military campaign is very lopsided. Iran seems to be running our of missiles while American and Israeli planes and drones can do whatever they want.

The tactic of decapitation, that is to say, killing the entire Iranian leadership in targeted strikes, is unprecedented. Usually, the top political and military ranks are not in direct danger. This is reflected in the concluding lesson of John McCutcheon’s song about the Christmas Truce in WWI, “Christmas in the Trenches”: “That the ones who call the shots won’t be among the dead and lame/ And on each end of the rifle we’re the same.”

Pres. Trump has even pointed out one of the ironies of this policy, namely, that there is no one left to negotiate with. Each time someone is appointed to a leadership role, he dies in an Israeli attack. What does this mean? We really don’t know because we haven’t seen anything like this in military history. [This point probably shouldn’t be in the “What We Know” section, obviously.]

A Wall Street Journal piece this week revealed another feature of Israeli penetration into the Iranian regime. The paper reproduced a transcript from a telephone call where Mossad (the Israeli military intelligence agency) called the personal cell phone of a mid to low level Iranian soldier and spoke to him in Farsi. Apparently, they have the numbers (literally and figuratively) of almost everyone in the country. They are also getting targeting information from Iranian civilians. This is also unprecedented.

That’s the good news. There’s also bad news about what we now know.

Iran fired two missiles at the American base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Remember this island? It is part of the Chagos Islands that Prime Minister Starmer of the United Kingdom was going to pay Mauritius to take off his hands. Everything is connected!

The thing about the missiles targeting Diego Garcia (one of which crashed into the ocean on its own and the other destroyed by the US Navy) is that Iran wasn’t supposed to have missiles that could reach a target that is 2,631 miles from Tehran. Everyone thought that they didn’t have the capacity for that.

A missile that can go that far is known as an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM). If it can reach Diego Garcia, it could reach Berlin (2,200 miles or 3,540KM away), Paris (2,610 miles or 4,200KM) and almost London (2,750 miles or 4,400KM). And Tehran isn’t the closest part of Iran to Europe. European countries do not have anti missile systems that can protect them from IRBMs which can reach descent speeds of up to Mach 10 (that’s ten times the speed of sound!).

Knowing that Iran has missiles of this capacity puts the decision to attack them three weeks ago in a new light, but doesn’t resolve the issue. Some might say that it justifies the operation because they were certainly trying to develop missiles that could threaten Europe. Others might say the operation is even more reckless because they have those capabilities already and might, therefore, have other things we thought they didn’t have, such as nuclear weapons.

New light tends to make opposing interpretations only more clear to the beholder. It comes down to how one feels about being held hostage by apocalyptic fanatics with a death wish, by which I mean the Islamic Republic not, in this case, European environmentalists.

What We Don’t Know

The big unknown is when the Strait of Hormuz will open to tanker traffic and get the oil flowing. A lot depends on this, and not just the price we pay to fill our cars.

The Americas are pretty shielded from the blockage of Hormuz, at least directly. Canada, Venezuela and the US have more oil than they use and other byproducts, such as fertilizer, are sourced from within the hemisphere, too. (California, however, does get gas from across the Pacific because shipping it from the Middle East is somehow more environmentally friendly than producing it locally, which they could and did do.)

Europe and Asia are in trouble, but what can they do? Japan, for instance, has no sources of oil within its territory. This lack of oil was, I’m afraid to point out, one of the reasons it expanded into its “Co-prosperity Zone” prior to WWII. Not really days of blessed memory. Japan and South Korea apparently have several months of reserved oil, but others like India certainly do not.

Most European countries have shut down their domestic supplies of oil and gas for environmental reasons. Much like California, they’d prefer to ship it half way around the world and through some very tricky bottlenecks than pull it out of the ground beneath their feet. (What was I saying about fanatics?) A closed Strait of Hormuz makes them even more dependent on Russian sources. And this is especially true for fertilizer, which they will need very soon as planting season begins.

Oil isn’t just for cars, although that’s were we see most of it. Somehow it is also involved in the production of helium, which is used in the making of computer chips. Don’t ask me how. And the Middle East provided most of Taiwan’s helium. Taiwan is where most of the chips are made for the whole world.

Other News

The Department of Homeland Security remains unfunded. Some airports are seeing five hour waiting times to get through security because TSA officers are not showing up to work if they aren’t getting paid.

Two solutions have been suggested (apart from the obvious one of enough Democrats voting to release the funds). First, Elon Musk has offered to pay the employees, himself. While he has he money, he couldn’t actually do this. He could give as much to the Treasury as he wants, but Congress would still have to pass a bill or continuing resolution to allow DHS to draw money to pay its employees.

The other suggestion, which Pres. Trump seems likely to do, is help staff TSA with ICE officers, who are getting paid. Whether or not that solves the problem, it might be enough to get the Democrats to concede and do what is necessary to fund the rest of DHS. The question is how the part of the party that is fanatically opposed to deporting illegals will respond to this suggestion. Is funding DHS worse than ICE agents in airports?

In other news, the Trump Administration has submitted its petition in the birthright citizenship case. Their argument is that “under the jurisdiction” does not apply to aliens, whether legal or illegal.

Remember that this all hinges on an interpretation of one clause in the 14th Amendment. So there is a lot of work going on to build arguments around how “under the jurisdiction” would have been understood at the time of passing the 14th Amendment. But because no one really wrote down what they thought it meant, probably because they assumed everyone understood, we are trying to trace the history of the concept.

As if the news is conspiring to let me tie everything back to Henry V, one of the arguments used in this case goes all the way back to the Salic Law.

The New Digest

The Salic Law of Our Republic

“In surveying the general structure of the constitution of the United States, we are naturally led to an examination of the fundamental principles, on which it is organized, for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects disclosed in the preamble…

Read more

2 months ago · 24 likes · 12 comments · Adrian Vermeule

You will remember that Henry’s claim to the throne of France rested on the Salic Law’s understanding of who is eligible to inherit sovereignty. Well, in a republic, citizens inherit sovereignty. So we have a well-developed history on this very issue. Of course, the fact that the last time we had to turn to the Salic Law was the middle of the Hundred Years War isn’t a great source of comfort.

We can use stasis in both meanings to describe the world around us. The military action in Iran is continuing, but we are seeing very few changes. The US and Israel continue to bomb various sites and, last I heard, five Americans were injured and one died [in the last 24 hours — ed.] . Things are changing and yet nothing is changing since last I wrote. Is this “stasis” or “stasis”?

Here at home the meaning is less ambiguous, unfortunately. On the same day, two different acts of Islamic terrorism occurred in the country. In one, a Lebanese man drove a car filled with explosives into a synagogue and Jewish school in Michigan. He was shot and killed by the armed guards that are, alas, all too necessary at Jewish centers around the world. The second involved a Muslim man from Sierra Leone, a naturalized American citizen, who was previously convicted for aiding ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a terrorist group that has killed Americans and other around the world). He attacked an ROTC class at Old Dominion University in Virginia where he shot and killed Lt. Col. Brandon Shah. Students fought back, unarmed, and killed the terrorist.

All of this comes just days after two Muslim Americans threw bombs into a demonstration in New York City. A small group was demonstrating against Muslim influence in the city in front of Gracie Mansion, the official home of the mayor of NYC who is a Muslim. A larger group formed to protest the demonstrators, calling them fascists and white supremacists. As one of the (white, liberal) demonstrators was chanting on his bullhorn, a young Muslim man climbed over his back and threw an improvised explosive device (a small bomb filled with nails) into the demonstration. Fortunately, it and another similar bomb did not detonate.

There was also an attack on a bar in Austin, TX on March 1 where four people were killed and fifteen wounded. The terrorist was, again, Muslim. And, like all the above cases, was a US citizen. The two young men from New Jersey who had their pleasant trip to the City disrupted (see below) were born here to immigrant parents. The others were all immigrants who became citizens. Is there a part of the government that should be looking into this?

You might remember that the Department of Homeland Security is currently going unfunded by the government. DHS is a counter terrorism office as well as the home of TSA, the airport security division. There is pressure on Democrats to resume funding it during this time of increased terrorism, but bills to do so have failed in the Senate as recently as yesterday. This means that everyone checking your bags at the airport is not getting paid, nor are those looking for terrorist networks. Some are quitting so they can find jobs that will pay their rent.

We can hope that those charged with oversight do not overlook this.

Suicidal Empathy

The term “suicidal empathy” is gaining traction and is popping up in discussions throughout the English speaking world. It was coined by Gad Saad, a Canadian evolutionary psychologist who has moved to the United States because, being Jewish, he is no longer safe in Montreal.

The term captures the idea that some people feel so empathetic that they are driven to actions that will bring about their own demise. The photo above of a liberal American demonstrating in support of increased immigration of Muslims, only to be used as a launch pad by a Muslim terrorist is almost too perfect an example of suicidal empathy. Had the bomb detonated, there is a good chance Mr. Launchpad would have been injured or died. Since the incident, he has publicly stated that he still supports mass immigration and does not think that Muslim terrorism is a real danger. You can’t make this up.

Speaking of making things up, CNN’s initial story (since deleted) cast the softest light on the NYC terrorists:

“Two Pennsylvania teenagers crossed into New York City Saturday morning for what could’ve been a normal day enjoying the city during abnormally warm weather. But in less than an hour, their lives would drastically change as the pair would be arrested for throwing homemade bombs during an anti-Muslim protest outside of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home.”

This CNN article was written after it was already known that the suspects told authorities that they wanted to cause more damage than the Boston Marathon bombers and wrote out statements pledging their loyalty to ISIS (yes, the same organization as the Old Dominion terrorist joined). If this isn’t suicidal empathy, I don’t know what is.

The House and Senate introduced bills earlier this week to order the President to remove all forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran. (Notice they avoid the word “war.”) It failed in both houses along mostly party lines, 47-53 in the Senate and 212-219 in the House. Even if it had passed the President could have vetoed it and neither vote was anywhere near the 2/3 majority required to override a veto.

What this means is the use of military force in Iran is legally ambiguous. It could be authorized under the Authorized Use of Military Force act from 2001. It might be compliant with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (passed by 2/3rd majority over Pres. Nixon’s veto, by the way). But now that both houses of Congress have refused to stop the military activity when given the chance to vote on the issue, there really isn’t much of a legal or Constitutional issue against it.

This isn’t really the way the Article I branch (the legislative) and the Article II branch (the executive) are supposed to operate, but we’ve been doing it this way for decades.

What’s Been Happening?

The good news is that the American military has been demonstrating an astounding level of proficiency, as has the Israeli. On the attack side, they have had amazing success taking out all defensive systems in Iran and degrading the offensive systems. They are also systematically eliminating the leadership of the Islamic Republic. On the defense side, the interceptors have shot down an astounding number of missiles and drones.

The bad news is that the Islamic Republic is even crazier than we thought. The whole reason for the war military operation was that the Iranian apocalyptic fanatics would not be restrained by the principles of self-preservation and rational calculation. They’ve proven that theory correct.

At last count, the Iranians have attacked 14 different countries with combinations of ballistic missiles and drones. They are attacking their erstwhile allies, such as Qatar, and all other Arab nations. Normally, these countries will at least publicly object to anything Israel does against any Muslim country. Now they are joining the US and Israel. Saudi Arabia may even use its air force to bomb Iran. One ballistic missile was shot down over Turkey. We don’t know if it went astray or was intentional, but technically it would draw all of NATO into the war because Turkey is a member. It is also on Iran’s border so a land invasion would be possible from there if Turkey got involved.

Not only is Iran alienating every surrounding country, it is not able to rely on allies further away. China has supplied Iran with a significant part of its military technology including, in the last thing I read, supersonic anti-ship missiles. Iran fired them off and not one of them hit their target. Oops. Now China has signaled that it will provide only “moral support” for Iran, but nothing more.

What Are Some of the Consequences?

We can’t say what is going to happen, but we can see what is happening. Here are some things we can say:

1. American Military: American military dominance is clear. Chinese and Russian weapons systems are no match for what the US has. They supplied Venezuela, too, and that didn’t work out well for them. Who will want to be their allies now?

2. Allied Militaries: Israel is at the top of its game. Don’t mess with Israel. We are also learning that Europe is hollow (except for France). The UK can barely set forth a few ships. The navy that once ruled the seas is stuck in port. Meanwhile, countries like the United Arab Emirates have larger and more sophisticated air forces than once world-leading forces like Canada. Power is shifting.

3. Economic Impact: Everyone is looking at the price of oil and natural gas. A huge amount of the oil and gas that comes out of the Middle East passes through the narrow Strait of Hormuz. Iran is trying to close that waterway; the US is trying to keep it open. (There are some fascinating but complicated things going on with maritime insurance, but I won’t get into that here.) With the war in Ukraine most of Europe has shifted its imports from Russia to the Middle East. Now that is being strangled. (Europe actually has lots of oil and gas in the ground. They just won’t extract it for political reasons.) But the longer this goes on the higher prices will go, and that’s not good for anyone’s economy.

   

4. China: China is in a bind. It needs oil and gas and something like 80% of it comes from the Middle East and through the Strait of Hormuz. Their erstwhile ally is trying to strangle that passage. Hmm. Maybe that accounts for the lukewarm support. Reports are coming in that Chinese military planes are not currently harassing Taiwan, something they’ve been doing for years. Are they trying to save gas? Maybe. It does give us an indication of just how sensitive China is to interruptions in their energy supply.

What To Watch For

The sooner this comes to an end the better for everyone. No one is going to benefit from a long, protracted war operation. Human casualties are the first concern, of course. Then comes the infrastructure in the Middle East and economic consequences elsewhere.

The Strait of Hormuz will continue to be the main thing to watch. Currently it is closed because Lloyd’s of London will not insure any ships, not because Iran has physically closed the strait. The US has stepped in to act as an alternative insurance company. One theory is that the US cut out the UK’s intelligence community on the attack on Iran because Prime Minister Starmer could not be trusted. It has long been suspected that Lloyd’s got secret information from MI6 about foreign affairs which allowed them to maintain their place at the center of insurance. (OK, I couldn’t help talking about insurance.) If a US version replaces Lloyd’s the world insurance markets would change dramatically and the UK would lose a massive economic mainstay.

The midterm elections are coming soon and gas prices are rising. More Americans are going to vote according to their economic interests rather than a war halfway around the world. If the economy sours, look for a very bad result for Pres. Trump. A Democrat majority in the House will start impeachment proceedings immediately and a Democrat majority in the Senate would schedule a trail in the most painful way possible for the President. On the other hand, a quick victory would be something to celebrate in the same year as the 250 anniversary of the country. Oil and gas prices would drop, patriotism would be up, and Democratic complaints that Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing would land like a lead balloon. Not much middle ground between those two options.

The US is an oil and gas exporter now, which means we use less than we produce. And now that Venezuela is working with us rather than against us, its oil reserves (calculated to be the largest in the world) could help keep prices reasonable. The rest of the world is not so lucky. Europe is stuck with limited imports, but Japan has only something like 9 months of reserves, China has 4-5 months, and India apparently has only one month worth of oil and gas in the country. These countries are going to be desperate for anything that trickles out of the Gulf of Arabia or via some other route. Short supply and high demand will drive prices through the roof.

The United States and Israel bombed various military and government installations early this morning. The division of labor seems to have the American forces destroy military assets and the Israelis target the political and military leaders. We already have credible reports that the Ayatollah Khamenei, the religious leader and real power in the country, has been killed. Everything is provisional at this point, but wow!

It is too early to make any grand assessments, but this could be one of the most positive events in the quarter century since 9/11. The terrorist attack on New York City and the Pentagon was the logical conclusion of Islamic attacks on the West, starting not so much with the Munich Olympics, but the taking of hostage the American Embassy during the Iranian Revolution. If this is successful in overturning the Islamic Republic, we could see a reversal of the trajectory of politics in the region.

Fascinatingly, Saudi Arabia has declared that it will join the US and Israel in their attacks on Iran. This is because Iran’s response to the assault this morning was to send missiles to seven countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. The Saudis do not have diplomatic relations with Israel but they will engage in joint military actions? Strange days, indeed.

The Decision

The decision to go to war is not to be taken lightly. That’s why the Constitution puts the power to do so in the hands of the Senate. Oh. What were they doing this week? They held a “Bipawtisan Doggi Gras Pawrade” for their pets. I guess everyone’s lucky Trump isn’t a horse guy. (Caligula reference there for those in the know.)

Was what Trump did (is doing) illegal? That’s tricky. First, we’ve been “at war” several times in the last eighty years without a declaration of war from the Senate. For those of us who would like to see the Constitution followed closely by elected representatives, this is troubling. But in this case it might be less so.

The Senate issued an “Authorized Use of Military Force” AUMF on Sept. 18, 2001. It has not been repealed. There was a separate one issued specifically in regards to Iraq which has been repealed. Does the AUMF apply to the events today? Maybe. Probably.

The Constitution also gives the President broad powers in regards to international relations in Article II. Although it does not use the phrase, the strong implication is that salus populi, suprema lex (the safety of the people is the highest law). Presidents have used this implied meaning of their powers from the beginning. Given that there was almost no pushback in Congress to the massive movement of military assets into the Middle East in preparation for this morning’s attacks, one might see tacit agreement there among legislators.

The Outcome

No one knows what will come of today’s attack. There are three broad possibilities:

1. The regime leaders are all killed and the Revolutionary Guard is crushed. People rise up and are supported by the non-radicalized military. As a result Raza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shaw, can step in to set up some sort of constitutional monarchy.

2. Remnants of the regime survive and a civil war ensues. Israel does not have the ground forces to intervene and the Americans are still wary of a war of this sort since the Iraq War (many of the problems and casualties in which were caused by Iranian soldiers). Other countries (see below) could be drawn in.

3. Airstrikes alone cannot take out the leaders or new leaders emerge. The Islamic Republic essentially survives, inflicts further reprisals on its people, and not much is different from yesterday.

The three possibilities depend on the efficacy of the military operation and whether the emerging coalition of what seems at this point to be the entire Middle East can actually hold. This all depends, in turn, on the intelligence operations in Iran. Are the Americans hitting the right military sites and are the Israelis hitting the actual leaders of the regime? Large scale civilian casualties and ineffective decapitation of the regime would point towards the less favorable outcomes.

Concurrent Events

Pakistan and Afghanistan are now at war. Just to put this in context, Pakistan has nuclear weapons (developed to counter India) and both countries border Iran. This could get messy. A civil war in Iran could easily pull in one or both countries. Even a very weakened Iran would open up the use of its territory for military purposes for either of these countries. Better to fight on Iranian soil than your own. That would not help.

Prior to this morning’s attacks, the United Kingdom refused to allow the US to use any of its military bases for any actions against Iran. The Labour Party of the UK, currently in power with Kier Starmer as Prime Minister, is beholden to Muslim voters and cannot support any action against Islamic countries, no matter what. There are demonstrations by Iranians throughout the world currently in support of the actions by the US and Israel. These will be important to follow.

However, Starmer and his Labour Party rely on a coalition of Muslims and leftist. Well, they did. There was a bi-election in a safe Labour seat just the other day which was won by a member of the Green Party, which is a real coalition of Islamic/Environmental radicals. If Labour loses the Muslims they lose power. This is why he is doing everything he can to appease them, even to the extent of proposing blasphemy laws that would protect only Islam. There is a good deal of speculation that the UK was not informed of today’s plans because they could not be trusted for this very reason.

Russia and China have been silent so far. Both have been allies of Iran. Russia gets drones from them for the war in Ukraine and China gets a lot of its oil from Iran. But Russia is overextended at the moment and cannot help anyone. Meanwhile, Xi Jinping has removed (from office and/or from life) most of the top Chinese military in the wake of the successful Venezuela operation. This should send a signal to the world that they are not reliable allies. Collapse of the Islamic Republic would also have profound effects on the Ukraine War and on the Chinese economy.

I’ll try to keep you updated. In the meantime, it might be a good idea to go and listen to that O Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtrack.

The Case

The dispute centers around the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) from 1977. This gives a president wide ranging authority to “regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” (50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)). There are a few other details, but this gives you the idea.

The Court did not rule on the question of whether there is, in fact, an emergency taking place. They seem to have left that decision to the president to decide, as the IEEPA suggests.

The question is over whether or not the list above—which does not use the word “tariff”—could also include the imposition of tariffs. The decision written by Chief Justice Roberts rules that because tariffs are not mentioned, tariffs cannot be used under this law. He thinks it is pretty straightforward.

Then things gets complicated.

Concurring

A tradition in the Court that developed early in its history is that all other justices can write their reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the decision. In this case, of the 6 justices that agreed that tariffs are not a part of the law, 5 wrote their own opinions: Roberts, Barrett, Brown, Gorsuch, and Kagan. So we have five different explanations for why they agree.

Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurrence of 48 pages in which he not only argued his case, he took aim at the other concurrences! He is especially hard on the liberal justices (Brown, Kagan, and Sotomayor) who thought President Biden had this kind of wide-ranging authority to forgive student loans, but don’t think so now that a Republican is in the White House. The other three were much shorter and didn’t get into the fight quite so much, but there is clearly a lot of disagreement about their agreement.

Their disagreement arises from the “major questions doctrine,” an idea in the law that only Congress can resolve issues of vast economic and political importance. For example, if Congress passes a law that says we need to reduce the number of traffic accidents, the President can’t decide that the best way to do so is to ban people from driving at night. So in regards to the case at issue, the President can’t just decide that tariffs are the best way to do what IEEPA wanted, even though they are never mentioned. The major questions doctrine arises because a lot of legislation is ambiguous and a lot of presidents (and their administrative agencies) have used those ambiguities to take on a lot of power to themselves.

Dissenting

There are two dissenting opinions, one from all three of the dissenters (written by Kavanaugh and agreed to by Alito and Thomas) and one from Thomas. Kavanaugh argues that regulations of the sort listed above in IEEPA have always included tariffs and he offers (over 68 pages) a list of times when this has occurred. Like Roberts, but drawing the opposite conclusion, Kavanaugh thinks this is pretty obvious. He argues that the Roberts decision would allow the President to impose an embargo or cut off all trade, just not regulate through tariffs (under IEEPA).

Thomas, like the concurrences, argues that this is really about the major questions doctrine and argues that the President can make a lot of these decisions, especially when it comes to questions about how to relate to foreign governments. In keeping with his long history on the bench, he maintains a clear distinction between domestic and foreign powers.

Implications

As a court of law not of fact, the Supreme Court decides only if something is constitutional or not. So the question of what to do with the tariff money received by the government is still open. That has been sent down to a lower court to work out.

In the meantime, President Trump has (after a vituperative rant about the traitorous actions of the justices) simply used other statutes to impose the same or higher tariffs. The only problem with these other laws, from his point of view, is that they require Congressional approval within a set period of time. Given how deadlocked Congress is, that seems unlikely.

Deadlocked Congress

Update on that: yes, DHS is still unfunded. This might get a little more attention in light of recent events south of us. The Mexican military (with assistance from the United States) tried to capture one of the leading drug cartel leaders. He died in the attempt. His cartel has now gone on a spree of violence. Some American tourists in popular tourist areas like Guadalajara and Puerto Vallarta have been taken hostage, according to the State Department. Shelter in place orders have been issued in much of the country.

The Department of Homeland Security is supposed to monitor and arrest cartel members in the US. Many entered the country while it was so easy to get in under President Biden. An unfunded DHS could be severely impeded in its abilities at a time of cartel reprisals.

No doubt the President will mention this tomorrow evening (Tuesday) at the State of the Union Address. We have talked about the politics of immigration and border enforcement in past posts. The Democrats have been very vocal in their support of any and all illegals, including even MS13 gang members. We pray that nothing horrible happens, but a few incidents could completely change public attitudes going into the midterm elections.

When Congress kicked the can down the road with yet another continuing resolution, they carved out funding the Department of Homeland Security as a separate item. This was long before the surge of ICE agents to Minneapolis and the death of two American civilians as they tried to impede deportation efforts. The politics surrounding DHS have changed significantly.

The country is still split on the deportation of illegal immigrants. A majority still reports support for deportations. But the scenes of protest coming out of Minneapolis and the deaths of two protestors have hardened the position of those who object to the Trump Administration’s mass deportation efforts. The Democrats are being pressured by their base to make changes to ICE procedures and are using the DHS funding issue to do so.

The Democrats are proposing a list of 10 changes and have refused to approve continued DHS funding until they are met. Ironically, ICE is fully funded throughout this period despite being a part of DHS. It was funded in a separate line of the Big Beautiful Bill last year. Other elements of DHS, such as the Coast Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), are suspended. Most of the members of those agencies will keep working with the hope that they will receive back pay later.

One demand from the Democrats is the use of body cameras for ICE officers. The Administration has already accepted and has started to implement this policy. Body cams were a demand of the Black Lives Matter movement based on the idea that they would prove that police often act unjustly. The opposite happened. Footage has overwhelmingly exonerated police officers in cases where they have shot suspects. This is so much the case that anti-police advocates now protest body cams because they think they are too advantageous to the police. So this was an easy concession for the Administration.

Other demands, such as prohibiting ICE agents from wearing masks, are more contentious. The “masks” agents wear are usually cloths around their necks that they can pull up over the lower half of their faces. With the ubiquitous sunglasses they wear, the agents become unidentifiable.

Masked police is not a good look and it is certainly disturbing to think that there are agents of the Federal government going around carrying out armed engagements while intentionally hiding their identities. Why do they do this? They hide their faces because there is a very well organized and well funded group of protestors who use photos of these agents to track them down, identify their home addresses, and threaten them and their families. They post this information on the internet with the express purpose of encouraging people to harass them. This is known as “doxing” because it is the posting of identifying documents on the internet. It is very dangerous.

In order to keep agents and their families safe, ICE and the DHS have refused to ban masking. This has proven to be an impasse on DHS funding.

Another issue is the type of warrant used to apprehend illegals. ICE currently relies on “Administrative Warrants.” (A warrant provides officials the right to enter a property and detail the individual in question.) These are issued within the department as a result of finding that the person in question is eligible for deportation because of illegal entry or overstaying a visa. This has been the process for decades.

Democrats object that administrative warrants are a denial of due process (our old friend the 14th Amendment again). They want a judicial warrant, that is, a warrant issued by a judge in a new process for each individual with the idea that due process requires that each person have “their day in court.”

Republicans object to the judicial warrants for two reasons. First, due process has already been served because the condition of being in the country on a visa includes being removed by administrative warrant, as do the laws regarding illegal entry. The second objection is that the judicial warrants will grind the process to a halt because there are not enough judges in the system to process all these warrants. The real reason Democrats insist on judicial warrants has nothing to do with procedure, they argue. Democrats just want to stop the whole process and this would do it.

There has certainly been a pattern of liberal organizations suing the Trump administration and succeeding in lower courts (especially in DC) and then having the decision overturned in higher courts, including the Supreme Court. But each one of these cases slows down the process and delays the implementation of Trump’s policy.

These are the main issues preventing the funding of DHS. The Senate is also not in session this week, so not much can be done. But the politics of this goes beyond the specific issues.

While a majority of Americans remain pretty consistent in wanting illegal aliens deported, including non-violent illegals, they have turned against the current practice of doing so. Seeing two Americans die can do that. It has also led to a change in policy at ICE.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Krisi Noem, has had a policy of maximum visibility. She likes ICE to be very visible and she likes to have lots of video to put on social media showing people detained and deported. She likes a spectacle. She also likes to be in front of the cameras, herself, usually with a lot of military gear and a tight shirt. She’s become known as “ICE Barbie” for a reason.

Tom Homan has taken over operations in Minnesota and toned down the rhetoric a lot. The numbers of deportations has not diminished, but the publicity over them has. He has become the public face of immigration enforcement and Noem has more or less disappeared. (A very negative NYT article on her hasn’t helped.)

So the question is whether nor not a more subtle approach will swing the American people back to supporting Trump’s immigration policies. Immigration was the issue that got him elected the first time and the second. With enough support it could keep his party in control of the House of Representatives in the midterm election this year. He will need that if he wants to get anything at all passed in the Legislature and, more importantly, keep from getting impeached (again) every other week.

The next few weeks will tell us what the two parties see in their internal polls. Which side thinks its current policies are a political liability? The Coast Guard and FEMA, as well as TSA, can’t go unfunded indefinitely. One side is going to have to give.

It is interesting to note that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both recently made comments about the dangers of mass immigration and the importance of enforcement. This could be a sign that their party is nervous. We’ll see.

Government Shutdown

We have another government shutdown, ladies and gentlemen. This one is partial, not complete, so no need to get excited. But it is a little exciting in that it brings together a lot of regular stories.

When the shutdown was resolved in November of last year the solution was to kick the can down the road on several issues. This is now the end of the road. Some of those issues involve funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of War (or Defense, if you prefer). So we get to combine anxieties over immigration enforcement and a possible attack on Iran all in one post.

(I won’t get into the Iran issue other than to say the US has directed A LOT of firepower into the Middle East. Pres. Trump’s credibility is on the line here. He said he would help the protesters and told them to keep protesting. Since doing so somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 Iranians have been killed by the government.)

The House of Representatives passed a bill to continue funding these agencies (again, as a stopgap) last month and the Senate was supposed to approve it last week. However, a few things happened in Minnesota in the meantime. Funding DHS wasn’t such a big controversy before the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. So now Democratic senators are trying to hold up the process of funding the government so that they can get changes inserted into bill. They want restrictions on ICE enforcement procedures, among other things. The irony is that ICE funding was not one of the things punted to this bill, so it’s funding isn’t delayed by the shutdown.

When the Senate changes the content of a bill it has to return to the House for another debate and vote, greatly slowing down the process and further holding up funding. But as in October the Democrats think they have support to do this.

SAVE Act

Adding to the complexity, several Republicans are willing to keep the government (partially) shut down until the Senate passes the SAVE Act. The “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility” Act would, among other things, require proof of citizenship when registering to vote and photo ID when one votes. The House passed an earlier version so the Senate has to decide what to do.

Democrats have long opposed voter ID laws, even though it is an issue the public tends to support at over 80%. Almost all the provisions in the bill are standard fare in other democracies, so people often wonder why the Democrats oppose these measures.

The easiest answer, if somewhat cynical, is that Democrats benefit from voter fraud. Investigations into the daycare fraud by Somalians in Minnesota (yes, the eternal return of Minneapolis) are certainly going to connect that fraud to voting “irregularities.” But a more generous interpretation would acknowledge that a lot of voting laws in the South were instituted to restrict blacks from voting after the Civil War. Provisions that required proof of a father or grandfather voting, for instance, were clearly designed for one purpose only. However, black Americans tend to support voter ID laws at the same levels as everyone else.

Pillows and Ballots

Drawing all things together in a tight bow, we have an ongoing investigation into the 2020 election and the alleged abuse of ballots in Georgia. Things seem to be coming out supporting the idea that there was some shady business, especially having to do with the voting machines.

The United States is one of the only countries that needs a complicated machine to count votes. I explain that here: “High Capacity Ballots.”

One of the main advocates for the idea that the Dominion voting machines were used to steal the election from Donald Trump was the owner and founder of “My Pillow,” Mike Lindell. He is now running in the Republican primary to be a candidate for governor of Minnesota. Yes, Minnesota, again.

As if things couldn’t get more confusing, one of the theories propounded about the voting machines was that they used software developed by a company that helped Nicholas Maduro steal the election in Venezuela. As soon as Maduro was seized by American agents, these theories resurfaced.

I am in no position to pass judgment on voting fraud theories or anything to do with software. I would just recommend not getting out over your skis on any of these issues, but also remember that over the past decade the main difference between conspiracy theories and the news is about six months.

Again, most of the facts of the case are not in dispute, but the interpretations vary. They certainly did shortly after the moment. (More on that below.)

What We Know

Alex Pretti was part of a group of people making noise and filming Border Patrol agents as they they detained a targeted individual in Minneapolis. “Targeted” means BP knew who he was, where he was, and what he had done. So officers went to a very specific location to arrest a specific person. His name has since been released and he is a very bad man.

How did Mr. Pretti get involved?

There is a coordinated group of people in Minneapolis who track ICE and BP (yes there are two different agencies operating in the same city with largely the same task; it’s the government). They send people to locations where officers are attempting to arrest someone and usually blow whistles, put their cars in the way of official vehicles, and generally try to make the task more difficult for the officers. They also film the entire interaction.

Mr. Pretti seems to have been a member of one of these groups, although no one knew that at the time. We now also know he received an injury during an altercation with ICE or BP just weeks ago. While filming officers he stepped between an officer and a protestor who had been shoved by the officer. The officer then tried to detain him.

Several other officers assisted the original officer. A gun was spotted on Mr. Pretti. One officer cried “Gun!” as is standard procedure. He then grabbed Mr. Pretti’s gun. At this point it seems the gun discharged by itself, which is apparently not uncommon with this model (Sig Sauer P320 AXG Combat). At the sound of gunfire, other officers shot Mr. Pretti.

Reactions

As seems inevitable now, both of the usual sides took opposite positions. Gov. Walz and Mayor Frey claimed that Mr. Pretti was assassinated, which would require a level of intention on the part of the officers that is completely unlikely. Not to be outdone, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Noem described Mr. Pretti as a “domestic terrorist” and that the was “brandishing a gun.” Sigh. At the time there was not the slightest evidence of the former and, from every camera angle, absolutely no evidence of the latter.

In Minneapolis the riots got worse. Hotels where ICE and BP agents were thought to be staying were attacked Saturday night. According to city policy, the police did not respond to an ICE-related incident. Some people have set up an “autonomous zone” in the location where Mr. Pretti died. On the model of the George Floyd riots, these are areas protestors take over and control, allowing only approved people to enter. The irony that they set up a border and then patrol it seems to be lost on these people.

The most significant reaction came from President Trump. He seems to be very displeased with Sec. Noem and her handling of the situation. He has sent his “Border Czar,” Tom Homan, to Minneapolis to sort things out.

The Czar position is a very strange post. First, “Czar” is Russian for “Caesar,” so having someone in a republican form of government referred to as a Caesar is a little unsettling. As with so many unsettling features of the American government, this one started under President Woodrow Wilson with the appointment of Bernard Baruch as industry czar during WWI. It is an informal position that does not require Senate confirmation, so it really means “a guy I want to have on staff in the White House and I’ll give him a lot of responsibility but no power.” Czars don’t actually run any agencies or direct any departments.

Tom Homan

Tom Homan has worked for decades in immigration enforcement. Pres. Obama awarded him the 2015 Presidential Rank Award for Distinguished Service. Homan worked at the time as Obama’s Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations at ICE.

Homan is also a favorite of Trump’s, both in this administration and his first four years in office. How many people have been respected by these two presidents? There can’t be many. But his intervention may actually signal continuity rather than change.

One thing we do know is that Homan’s priority has always been to remove any illegal alien with a record of crime. Sen. Noem, however, has been focused on absolute numbers of deportations. This has been a tension inside the Trump administration. But because Noem is a Senate-confirmed cabinet secretary, she has had significantly more direct authority and power than Homan. If this has changed it can only be informally unless Homan is given her job and confirmed by the Senate. Again, the czar role is really only advisory.

Changes

Tom Homan has already arrived in Minneapolis and spoken with both the Governor and Mayor and things are changing.

On Monday night another hotel was attacked but Minneapolis police responded immediately and arrested several people. This is a big change. And it seems that police are now working with ICE and BP throughout the city, reducing a lot of the conflict that was almost unique to Minneapolis. ICE and BP are deporting illegals all over the country, but riots are ensuing only in one city. (This happened briefly in Chicago over the summer but stopped as soon as the Chicago police department stepped in to assist the federal agents.)

Did Homan work some magic on Walz and Frey? Probably not. More likely they both got spooked by the work of a few online sleuths. Remember the organized protestors I mentioned at the beginning of this post? Someone got into their Signal account (which now seems completely useless as an encrypted communication service) and not only got a list of all the people working to disrupt ICE agents, they also found all the funding sources.

Not only are several government officials involved in impeding arrests (an illegal offense), the money coming in to support their efforts in doing so is now attached to names. Some of these names are aligned with China. The information has been posted on the internet and it does not look good. The protests look a lot more like a coordinated foreign operation than most would have suspected.

Just a few weeks ago, although it feels like a year, the Somali daycare fraud scandal forced Tim Walz to drop out of the race for governor. The ICE raids and deaths seemed to wash all that away and he again became the Democrat’s standard bearer for masculinity. Although some people pointed out that his encouraging people to put their bodies on the line against ICE (while he stood behind the locked gate of the governor’s mansion) looked a bit like Lord Farquaad from Shrek, he was riding a wave.

Now he’s humbly sitting on a beach blanket and working with the czar. Unfortunately, he already whipped people up into a frenzy. Today his offices were overrun by protestors protesting that he is working with the Trump administration. Poor Tim can’t win.

Where this goes next is impossible to tell. Polls continue to show very high support for deporting illegal aliens, regardless of their criminal status. But a lot of people find the scenes recorded by protestors to be just too much to watch and would like things to be toned down. The nation has the same internal tensions as the Trump administration.

Some people have compared the deaths in Minneapolis to the shootings at Kent State in 1970 where four students protesting the Vietnam War were killed by National Guardsmen. That might be a good analogy. But don’t forget that two years after that event Richard Nixon won 250 electoral college votes to George McGovern’s seventeen. Distance can sometimes exaggerate the importance of an event. Sometimes distance can also obscure. It’s hard to tell.

With the midterms in November the President is going to need every vote he can get. But as news comes at us so fast, will voters remember the headlines from January when they vote in November? As I write this we are all waiting to hear about a strike on Iran and the collapse of the Islamic Republic. What else could happen?

Pres. Trump, just after I posted my suppositions on Greenland decided to render them pointless by announcing that he has come to an agreement in principle with the Secretary General of NATO. Details to come, but everyone is standing down.

I hope to have more to say about this once the dust settles. It will be interesting to see what his threats might have accomplished, if anything. Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary General, said only Trump could get Europe to take its own defense seriously, so that’s something.

My friend and colleague on this site suggested that the whole thing about Greenland was some sort of ongoing fight with the late Rob Reiner (of Princess Bride fame).

Iran

In the opposite direction, everyone is standing at attention and watching what could happen in Iran. The US has moved massive amounts of military equipment into all the bases that could launch attacks on Iran. (We talked about Diego Garcia in relation to Greenland and Chagos.)

Pres. Trump said he was going to help the protesters, and it looks like he is just about to do so. Lots of questions still stand. What will the military do? Is it just bombing and missiles? What are the targets? Will there be “boots on the ground”? And why now? Did Trump wait so as to get all these forces into place?

Lots to consider. Also, if the Iranian Islamic regime is overthrown, this would be an historic event. It might not get him the Peace Prize he wants, but it would secure Trump’s place in history.

The arguments against invading Greenland, bullying Denmark into selling it to the US, or bribing the residents of Greenland to hand it over to the US are so obvious that they hardly need to be made. Invasion, bullying, and bribing are acts of high statesmanship. But what is the case for acquiring this isolated island in the Arctic?

The strategic value of Greenland has been acknowledged by all parties. It is a massive island sitting between Europe, Russia, and the United States. A lot of people have commented on the trade routes that might open up through the Arctic if ice melts, but the more important issue is missile defense. All Russian missiles aimed at the Eastern half of the US would pass over Greenland. For the West of the country the missiles would pass over Alaska. A missile defense system on Greenland would be perfect. [Map from

Why doesn’t the US build its defensive system on Greenland now? Good question. The treaty between the US and Denmark (the governing body over Greenland) allows practically unlimited access for the US. During the Cold War there were as many as seventeen US bases on the island, almost all of which have been abandoned. What advantage would the US have in acquiring the island that it does not have now?

To answer that question we need to look to a strange political event going on in the United Kingdom. The current UK government is trying to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. While this can be seen as a continuation of decolonization begun after WWII, it has significant geopolitical implications.

The Chagos Islands are a series of small islands in the Indian Ocean. One of them is the atoll of Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is the site of a large and strategically important American military base. It was from here that much of the bombing of Iran in the summer was coordinated and launched. The strategic location is highly significant for any American military activity in East Africa, the Middle East (including Iran), India, Pakistan, and even parts of China.

At first the American government supported the handover of Chagos to Mauritius, but that changed. The Trump administration is now asking PM Starmer to change his mind. The Chagos people do not want to leave the UK and a lot of British people are upset because the deal includes paying Mauritius to take the islands. But let’s return to the strategic issue.

China has been engaging in what it calls the Belt and Road Initiative. Based on the ancient Silk Road, the idea is to develop land and sea-based shipping routes. Communist China being Communist China, these routes come with strings attached. Many of the ports in the belt are built by China and, more significantly, owned by China. Local governments do not have any oversight of them, meaning that they are effectively Chinese military bases if they want them to be.

If you look at the map immediately above, you will notice that a line from Columbo to Lamu passes pretty close to the Chagos Islands, which of course include Diego Garcia. Now consider that Mauritius has close ties to China. Wouldn’t it be convenient for China to set up a “commercial port” close to one of the most strategic American military outposts? Hmm.

One more item out of Britain. The Starmer government has just approved a massive building project to expand the Chinese embassy in London. The plans (below) show several buildings without any stated purpose. Knowing that China operates prisons in all major cities in the world should make one suspicious. The building plans also have the basement extend up to a major route of telecommunications cables. If you don’t imagine that they could tap into sensitive information you haven’t read enough spy novels.

From the above, I can only assume that the Trump administration is concerned that the Danish government cannot be trusted to give and maintain access to Greenland. The British government seems to be giving China everything it wants, despite having even closer military and intelligence ties than the US and Denmark. That concern seems to be the only reason why the current lease agreement over Greenland is insufficient. This also accords with the recent National Security Strategy, released in November, that identifies weakness among European allies as one of the greatest dangers. This criticism is consistent across all the Cabinet secretaries regardless of their differences.

What I’m trying to do is understand the vehemence with which the Trump administration is pursuing an object that they already seem to hold. As is clear from the reaction of many Europeans, this dogged pursuit of Greenland is alienating even their allies. Trump’s actions could undermine populist political movements in Europe the same way his antagonistic comments about taking over Canada did. The Conservative Party in Canada was almost sure to win the last election until Trump started making crazy comments about turning it into the 51st state. Now the Liberal Prime Minister, Marc Carney, is cozying up to China.

If Trump is concerned that the Europeans are unreliable allies, he seems to be doing everything possible to make sure that is true.

As of today, the people of Iran have been demonstrating in the streets for 17 days. The leaders have turned off the internet, so we do not have any video evidence for the last two or three days. Reports suggest they IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) have killed between 12,000 to 20,000 people.

Pres. Trump has repeatedly stated that he would support the protestors and “punish” the regime officials. He even told protestors to record the names of anyone involved in massacres because they would pay for their crimes. But no one yet knows what he and American forces will do. (Anything could change between when I write this and when you read this.)

The son of the former Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, has been speaking with American officials and has been sending word to protestors in Iran to continue and to the Iranian military and police to side with the people and turn on the Islamic regime.

No one knows where this will end. The best case scenario is seeing Pahlavi return as at least a transitional leader until something more permanent can be established. If that were to happen, the largest sponsor of terrorism would be eliminated and China’s major source of oil would become an American ally. Iran also produces the drones for the Russian war in Ukraine, which would be shut off immediately. Half the parties in the China-Russia-Venezuela-Iran axis would be taken out.

The downside is that a nation of 90 million people in the crossroads of Europe and Asia could be thrown into chaos. Our interventions have not always turned out well, so this is a real possibility.

But if you hear people sound excited about the events in Iran it is because this is an historic opportunity for releasing millions from oppression and rearranging the geostrategic map of the world. More later.

Minnesota

The death of Renee Good in the incident with ICE officials continues to divide the country and the state. More video has come out without changing minds. People who initially thought she was murdered still do. Those who thought the officer defended himself still do.

It is very unlikely that the ICE agent will face criminal charges. There are strong protections for law enforcement officers who believe their lives are in danger. Any reasonable assessment at the time (not in hindsight, which is what anyone watching the videos are doing) that the officer was in danger exculpates the individual. Minnesota and federal laws are all in agreement, as is Supreme Court precedent. And in case you were wondering, cars count as deadly force in these cases.

One of the reasons Minnesota is the center of this case is that the state and Minneapolis are both “sanctuary” jurisdictions. Neither will cooperate with federal officials enforcing immigration laws. Where in other states the police will accompany and protect ICE officers and hand over to them anyone they happen to arrest who has a deportation order, sanctuary jurisdictions will not accompany police nor hand over offenders. If ICE is going to deport anyone, its officers will have to track them down without the assistance of local police. There are many cases of police releasing people they have arrested so that ICE can’t get them. Indeed, a Wisconsin judge named Hannah Dugan took a man who appeared before her court for battery charges through her chambers and helped him escape. She has since been convicted of felony obstruction.

Why surge ICE to Minnesota? There are several reasons. Recent revelations of fraud by the Somali community put it in the news; Tim Walz was the Democratic nominee for VP and so was in the spotlight; it is smaller and easier to make an example of the state than, say, California or New York. These might seem unfair, but they are real reasons.

Supreme Court

The Court is expected to release decisions on major topics today or later this week. One is on the powers of the President to impose tariffs. Others involve voting rights, specifically whether the apportionment of “majority minority” districts (Congressional districts that are gerrymandered to produce a population that is greater than 50% minority, which in practice means African American) is mandated by the Voting Rights Act or is unconstitutional.

Yesterday, the Court heard oral arguments in the case of two states, Idaho and West Virginia, that are being sued for their laws that do not permit men to play in women’s sports, even if those men say they are women. These two cases were consolidated into one because they involve the same issues, even though one is about a university and the other about a high school. The Supreme Court will often do this.

The question is whether banning these men from women’s sports violates Title IX and/or the 14th Amendment. Title IX guarantees that no one can be denied benefits or opportunities based on their sex in educational settings. The largest impact has been on the expansion of women’s sports since its enactment in 1972. It has been interpreted to mean that schools have to spend the exact same amount of money on women’s sports as on men’s.

The 14th Amendment is a Reconstruction amendment to the Constitution passed in the wake of the Civil War. I wrote about this amendment in relation to birthright citizenship and the question of “jurisdiction.” The same section continues:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So the question before the Court is whether women only sports leagues either violate Title IX’s protection from discrimination based on sex or on the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause or its “equal protection” clause. But the real question, of course, is whether a man who says he is a woman can legally be a woman. Yes, the world has come to this point.

There are three possible outcomes, as I can see:

1. The Court punts as it did in the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and says this is a state issue and they can do what they like, allowing Idaho and West Virginia to ban men but allowing California, for instance, to include them in women’s sports. This is unlikely because the cases hinge on a part of the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment.

2. The Court could say that men who claim to be women are legally women. The liberals on the Court would like to do so, but the legal reasoning for this would make a bowl of spaghetti look like a straight line. But Roe stood for almost 50 years, so stranger things have happened.

3. The Court could rule that men are men and women are women. This, of course, is the most straightforward and logical position to take. It conforms with law, biology, and is attested to by both birds and bees. This is complicated, however, because of the 2020 Bostock decision. In that case the Court ruled 6-3, with Justice Gorsuch writing the opinion, that “An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” Will this same reasoning apply to the question of “transwomen” (or is it “transmen”? I can never remember whether the trans refers to the destination or the origin.)

Sic transit gloria mundi, although I don’t think any of the parties involved are named Gloria. (There’s a joke for Jane. Let’s see if she reads all the way to the end and finds it.) [That’s not much of a joke, ed.]