The “Baker” explosion, part of Operation Crossroads, a nuclear weapon test by the United States military at Bikini Atoll, Micronesia, on 25 July 1946. [Source: Wikipedia]

As I write this, US president Donald Trump seems deep in his usual dither. Trump, according to the Wall Street Journal, “told senior aides late Tuesday [June 17] that he approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off to see if Tehran would abandon its nuclear program.”

So, OK, we’re used to that: Tariffs! Wait, no tariffs! Wait, reduced tariffs! Mass deportations! Wait, not farm workers, maids, and waiters! Wait, them too!

War on Iran, though, isn’t so much a matter of changing his mind as whether he’s out of his mind. It’s an evil and risky proposition with no moral or practical up side, and a trigger far more difficult to un-pull than tariffs or deportations. That he’s even considering it makes a strong case for his removal from office via the 25th Amendment.

If there’s any lesson to learn from two decades of US and Israeli pressure on Iran to shut down a non-existent “nuclear weapons program,” starting with economic sanctions and leading inevitably to Israeli airstrikes and open war on the apt date of Friday the 13th, it’s that an Iran with nuclear weapons just might be the best option if the goal is to calm down the Middle East.

Iraq’s Saddam Hussein gave up his nuclear ambitions, after which the US invaded and occupied his country and killed him.

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi gave up his nuclear ambitions, after which NATO invaded and occupied his country and killed him.

North Korea’s Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un saw their nuclear ambitions through to  testing and fielding a nuclear arsenal, after which those who might have otherwise supported invading and occupying North Korea and killing its ruler cooled their jets. Not really “peace,” but clearly a better option than open war.

On the subject of nuclear weapons, the Iranian regime has proven itself not just compliant, but obsequiously so, through decades of broken promises and renewed lies about its ambitions, only throwing up its hands and saying “fine, we’ll enrich uranium to weapons grade purity” after multiple broken promises by, among others, Donald Trump, and only to get its opponents to start holding up THEIR end of the 2015 “Iran nuclear deal.”

The Iranian regime, a theocracy, even observes a religious proscription on building nukes per a fatwa from its “Supreme Leader.”

In return, the Iranian regime got a narrow range of responses, from economic isolation to open war.

Fatwas are merely legal rulings on points of Islamic law. Their authors might reverse themselves. Ali Khamenei should.

If the Pakistani regime announced a gift of three nuclear-armed Shaheen III missiles to the Iranian regime, with one put immediately under Iranian operational control until the others can be moved to and sited in Iran,  the war would likely come to a screeching halt.

Mutual Assured Destruction has its down sides, but at this point it seems like the best option for cooling down US/Israeli war fever and seeking a re-set based on honest dealing instead of threats.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

It’s always dangerous to accept “participation” statistics about public events, so I’ll take equal grains of salt with the White House’s estimate of 250,000 attendees at Donald Trump’s June 14 birthday parade in Washington, DC, and the American Civil Liberties Union’s estimate of more than five million participants in more than 2,100 “No Kings” rallies around the US on the same day.

I attended the “No Kings” event in Gainesville, Florida, with a friend. Media estimates for participants in that rally range from 1,500 to 3,000. My impression is that real attendance came closer to, and probably exceeded, the higher figure.

I didn’t go to the rally with any particular issue on my mind. I didn’t make a sign to wave, or take advantage of any of the offerings of signs hitting on various subjects.

While it’s fair to say that I’m “anti-Trump” both in general and on any number of specifics, my goal (and, I think, my friend’s) wasn’t so much to express that sentiment as to “take the temperature.” What issues would enjoy the loudest support/opposition? Would MAGA counter-protesters show up? Would the protesters, the counter-protesters, or the police engage in violence?

Thankfully, I saw no violence. I saw no counter-protesters. Oddly, at a gathering of thousands with tense political implications, I saw not a single uniformed police officer. I’m not saying they weren’t there. But I walked around quite a bit and IF they were there they weren’t prominent.

The simplest “temperature” measure, of course, was opposition to the presidency of Donald Trump.  Nobody (or at least nobody I encountered) seemed to disagree with that.

Why? Well, that’s where the crowd got all over the place.

I saw signs opposing US support for Israel’s war in Gaza (but, oddly, no signs referencing Iran or the Russia-Ukraine war);  signs opposing cuts to federal funding of everything from Medicaid to university research; signs opposing Elon Musk; signs supporting LGBTQ people and causes; signs opposing Trump’s war on immigrants; signs supporting free speech, civil liberties, and due process; and just general anti-Trump signage.

The initial talk by the main “organizer” stressed that the 50501 movement (which “coordinated” the “No Kings” events) is “decentralized” and “non-partisan.” Perhaps the former, but far from the latter. Various Democratic Party organizations, and “progressive” organizations at least nominally affiliated with the party, ran booths. Groups of people wearing similar t-shirts suggested those organizations had specifically turned out their members for the event.

Let me be blunt: Whether the organizers intended it or not, the nationwide simultaneous rallies became, in effect, the Democratic Party’s first major campaign event for the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Those of who oppose Trump but aren’t Democrats came along for the ride. Our support was co-opted whether we liked it or not.

So: I had fun, but found the pervasive “no REPUBLICAN kings” vibe disappointingly narrow.

Until we reject the whole idea of letting ourselves be ruled by politicians, the senile party hacks who lord it over us are “kings” whether we call them that or not.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On June 12, Axios reported, the US regime refused to support Israeli strikes on Iran … but US president Donald Trump said such strikes “might very well happen” even though he wouldn’t want Israel to “blow it” (“it” being a new nuclear deal to replace the one Trump began violating in 2018).

Hours later, Israeli aircraft attacked, apparently damaging Iranian nuclear facilities and killing top military figures. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the action as “unilateral” and emphasized that “we are not involved.”

Within hours, however, Trump described the Israeli strikes as, effectively, an outsourcing of US policy. “We knew just about everything,” he said. “We knew enough that we gave Iran 60 days to make a deal and today is 61, right? So, you know, we knew everything.”

After which US forces put its air defense capabilities in the region to work helping Israel blunt the impact of Iranian counterstrikes.

One reasonable conclusion, drawn by any number of reasonable people, is that Trump and Rubio were lying to begin with and that the Israeli strikes enjoyed US approval and possibly even active, direct US support (such as the use of US aerial refueling for the Israeli aircraft).

That certainly seems possible, but I’d like to offer a different theory: Trump got played. The Israelis said they intended to strike. Trump said not to. The Israelis struck anyway, betting that Trump would circle back to claim prior knowledge and tacit approval, then throw in to defend Israel from the consequences of its actions.

I don’t know that either theory will ever be fully proven as correct, but the latter theory tracks with everything we know about Trump’s history and method.

As a “leader,” Trump is congenitally incapable of admitting either of two things: Error or weakness.

Prior to running for politics, he operated entirely on “brand,” not actual accomplishment.

Over decades as a real estate developer, casino operator, etc., he racked up multiple business bankruptcies and built a smaller fortune than he’d have earned from investing his inheritance in an S&P 500-indexed mutual fund and going on permanent vacation.

When sequential failures in real business moved him to go  full Hollywood with The Apprentice, the focus was on being a “boss”  dispensing sage advice to (or yelling “you’re fired” at) future business moguls (most of whom subsequently sank from view).

Having failed upward into the presidency, his strategy remains the same: Promote a Trump “brand” built on the pretense that he’s competent and in charge. When both prove false, just change the story to fit the image.

In my opinion, the Israelis correctly saw Trump as an easy mark and acted accordingly. We’ll get stuck with the bill, in treasure and quite possibly blood.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY