"Once again, I find myself caught in the conundrum of opposing an illegal war unleashed by the United States and its allies on a country whose regime I vehemently oppose. (...) The path to “Woman, Life, Freedom” does not run through the smoking ruins of Tehran. It runs through the defeat of the very powers that have spent 70 years ensuring Iran can never know peace or democracy. The people of Iran must first be liberated from the clasps of the hideous choice between the current regime and a fate worse than Iraq, Libya, and Syria combined. Our job, as Western Leftists, is to act upon our governments to stop the bombing. To end the sanctions that starve the poor and enrich the regime’s smugglers. To dismantle the propaganda machine that tells us war is peace and occupation is freedom. Then, and only then, can the Iranian people, exercising their own immense power, reclaim their future from both the theocrats and their imperial enablers." On Iran and the Left Progressives have a duty to stop the bombs

UnHerd

On Iran and the Left

"This is the first three-way war in human history where every participant uses AI. (...) this week Iran moved from presiding over a blocked Straits of Hormuz and rocket-struck oil tankers to threatening to strike U.S. companies servicing the U.S. military, naming Google, Microsoft, Palantir, IBM, Nvidia, and Oracle as their next targets." The AI Struggle for Middle Earth in the U.-S.-Israel War on Iran

The Markaz Review

The AI Struggle for Middle Earth in the U.S.-Israel War on Iran

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming battlegrounds, and is at the heart of many international assassinations.

This is, in my opinion, an unusual description of the state of the balance of power in the Israeli-American war against Iran. Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson is a recognized expert. "Wilkerson represents a dissident conservative realism that has shifted toward a structural critique of American imperialism, objectively aligning him with the anti-war left, without, however, adopting its analytical or normative framework. His credibility rests on his institutional background—31 years in the military, Chief of Staff at the State Department—which gives him an authority that civilian intellectuals holding similar positions would not possess. It is precisely this combination—institutional insider + radical critique of the system—that explains his omnipresence in alternative and progressive media, and the mistrust shown toward him by mainstream media and neoconservative think tanks." (Claude) Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Netanyahu Could Turn to Nuclear Bombs If Iran War Escalates

Democracy Now!

Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Netanyahu Could Turn to Nuclear Bombs If Iran War Escalates

As President Trump gives conflicting statements about the length and objectives of the war he launched with Israel against Iran, fears are growing ...

2 of 2) Make a qualitative judgment on the question of whether or not the Israeli-American war against Iran is in accordance with international law. ** (Claude Sonnet 4.6, 2026.03.09) Qualitative Assessment: The Israeli-American War Against Iran Under International Law Preliminary Note on Method A qualitative judgment differs from a purely descriptive legal analysis. It requires weighing the severity of violations, the credibility of justifications advanced, and the systemic implications for the international legal order — not merely cataloguing breaches. Assessment: A War of Aggression, Not a Borderline Case The honest qualitative verdict is unambiguous: this conflict does not occupy a legal grey zone. It represents a clear and serious violation of the jus ad bellum framework, for the following compounding reasons. 1. The justifications are legally incoherent The shifting rationale — nuclear threat, then regime destabilization, then support for internal protests — is not merely politically inconvenient; it is legally fatal. A valid claim of self-defense under Article 51 requires an actual armed attack or, at the absolute outer boundary of accepted doctrine, an imminent and overwhelming threat. A nuclear capability that might materialize in months or years satisfies neither standard. The lack of a stable, consistent legal argument signals that no genuine legal basis exists — only post-hoc rationalization. 2. The deliberate bypass of the Security Council is aggravating States acting in genuine self-defense typically invoke the Security Council, even when they act unilaterally. Here, the Council was structurally circumvented. This is not procedural negligence — it is a deliberate choice to remove the conflict from multilateral scrutiny. From a qualitative standpoint, this transforms what might otherwise be a contested legal question into a calculated rejection of the UN system itself. 3. The regime-change dimension removes any remaining ambiguity Whatever residual legal debate might attach to preventive strikes on nuclear infrastructure dissolves entirely when the objective expands to overthrowing a sovereign government. No doctrine — not R2P, not humanitarian intervention, not anticipatory self-defense — provides legal cover for coercive regime change without explicit Security Council authorization. This objective places the operation squarely within the definition of aggression under UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974). 4. Proportionality and distinction are likely breached Even if a narrow self-defense argument were accepted, the scale and nature of strikes launched on February 28, 2026 raise serious concerns under jus in bello. Massive offensive operations against a state’s military and civilian infrastructure rarely satisfy the proportionality requirement relative to any plausible defensive objective. Mitigating Considerations — and Why They Fall Short One might argue that Iran’s support for proxy forces, its ballistic missile program, and its nuclear ambitions constitute a pattern of aggression justifying preemptive action. This argument carries political weight but fails legally: international law does not permit cumulative grievances to substitute for an actual armed attack triggering Article 51. The Caroline threshold — instant, overwhelming necessity — is not met by a strategic calculation about future threats. Systemic Implications: The Deeper Qualitative Harm Beyond the immediate legal violations, the qualitative gravity of this conflict lies in what it normalizes. If major powers can launch large-scale wars against sovereign states based on speculative threat assessments, bypassing the Security Council and pursuing regime change, the jus ad bellum framework effectively ceases to function as a constraint. The precedent is not merely bad law — it is the dissolution of the legal architecture built after 1945 to prevent great-power war. Verdict This war is not a close call dressed in legal ambiguity. It is an act of aggression — in the technical legal sense — conducted with justifications that cannot withstand scrutiny, through means that deliberately exclude multilateral oversight, toward objectives (regime change) that are flatly prohibited. The qualitative judgment must be correspondingly severe: this represents one of the most significant breaches of the jus ad bellum framework since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with potentially more destabilizing long-term consequences for international legal order. Sources: UN Charter, Arts. 2(4) & 51; UNGA Res. 3314 (1974); Nicaragua v. United States, ICJ (1986); Caroline doctrine (1837); International Crisis Group regional assessments; Opinio Juris (March 2026). Suggestions for further research: Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (6th ed.); the ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Kampala Amendments, 2010); and comparative analysis with the legal debates surrounding the 2003 Iraq War and the 2011 Libya intervention.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1 of 2) Make a qualitative judgment on the question of whether or not the Israeli-American war against Iran is in accordance with international law. ** (Gemini) Synthesis and Qualitative Assessment of Compliance with International Law The question of whether an Israeli-American war against Iran would comply with international law (jus ad bellum) yields a near-unanimous consensus among international legal scholars: it does not. Below is a synthetic legal analysis. Violation of the Non-Aggression Principle Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter prohibits any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state. The large-scale strikes launched on February 28, 2026 constitute a violation of this foundational principle, as they fall outside the two recognized exceptions: ∙ Security Council Authorization: In this case, the operation bypassed the UN entirely, rendering it unlawful from the outset. ∙ Self-Defense (Article 51): To be invoked, the aggression suffered must be actual or, under strict interpretation (the Caroline criterion), “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.” The Invalidity of “Preventive Self-Defense” The doctrine invoked by Israel and the United States — neutralizing future military capabilities (nuclear or ballistic) to forestall a potential threat months or years away — is considered unlawful. International law does not permit states to substitute themselves for the Security Council in waging wars of “strategic threat management.” The Illegality of Regime Change International law enshrines the principle of sovereignty. The use of force to overthrow the government of a sovereign state (Iran), even under the guise of humanitarian motivations or the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), is unlawful without an explicit UN mandate. Moreover, R2P prioritizes non-military means and diplomatic engagement — neither of which was pursued here. Qualitative Assessment From a qualitative standpoint, the offensive is regarded by many experts (including those at the Club des Juristes and Opinio Juris) as an act of aggression. The ambiguity of its objectives — alternately framed as targeting nuclear infrastructure or supporting internal Iranian protests — undermines the credibility of any preventive self-defense claim. Conclusion Assessed against established facts and legal frameworks, this war is non-compliant with international law. It represents a sharp break with the multilateral order, replacing the rule of law with a discretionary right of force. As International Crisis Group reports warn, the likely consequences include an uncontrollable regional escalation and a permanent weakening of the United Nations Charter. Sources: ∙ Analysis by Louise Arbour on Radio-Canada (24/60). ∙ United Nations Charter, Articles 2(4) and 51. ∙ Legal commentary from the Club des Juristes and Opinio Juris (March 2026). Suggestions for further research: Mary Ellen O’Connell’s work on the use of force; the ICJ’s jurisprudence on Nicaragua v. United States (1986) as a precedent on unlawful intervention; and Martti Koskenniemi’s critiques of the instrumentalization of international law by great powers.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

"Iranian civil society spoke. They condemned the Islamic Republic’s mass killings as crimes. They demanded accountability, freedom, and transformational change. They called for a referendum and a constituent assembly. They rejected clerical authoritarianism. And they rejected war. Now that war has been launched—after weeks of US and Israeli officials speaking casually about “bombing” and “military buildup,” and many of the people most battered by the Islamic Republic warning that foreign military intervention would not liberate them. It would bury them. (...) inside the country, a third current has always existed. It is anti-authoritarian and anti-war at the same time. It rejects both domestic tyranny and foreign intervention. It demands self-determination through nonviolent civic struggle." The Iranian Voices America Isn’t Hearing https://www.thenation.com/article/world/iran-massacre-bombing-protests/

This expert on fascism considers the United States a fascist country. Given that Trump is elderly (79 years old), a return to democracy is still possible.

Cet expert du fascisme a quitté les États-Unis pour le Canada | Radio-Canada

Al used nuclear weapons in 95% of war game simulations, study finds "Across the study, the experiment found frontier Al models deployed tactical nuclear weapons in 95% of the simulated games, according to King's College London researcher Dr. Kenneth Payne. Safety training and RLHF [Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback] produced conditional pacifism, but deadline-driven scenarios forced models to override peaceful programming and strike when defeat was certain. Researchers recorded that in 21 games, the Als produced around 780,000 words, with 86% unintended escalations and an 18% de-escalation rate after tactical nuclear use. (...) Experts caution that the study challenges deterrence assumptions, as Al may reshape crisis perceptions and timelines despite experts agreeing no nation is likely to give autonomous systems direct nuclear control." Insights by Ground News Al Shall we play a game? - Professor Kenneth Payne, Professor of Strategy

Shall we play a game? | Feature from King's College London

Professor Kenneth Payne remarks on his latest study of LLMs navigating a nuclear simulation.

White House officials believe ‘the politics are a lot better’ if Israel strikes Iran first . These Trump administration officials are privately arguing that an Israeli attack would trigger Iran to retaliate, helping muster support from American voters for a U.S. strike. [Carly Simon - You're So Vain] https://politi.co/4qVQxJo via @politico

Authoritarian and far-right power doesn’t grow in isolation. It is organised — across finance, ideology, institutions and transnational alliances. This new infographic series, developed with Reactionary International, traces how these networks connect and consolidate influence worldwide. https://www.tni.org/en/mapping-fascism

"Trump hasn’t sought the approval of either Congress or the United Nations to attack Iran. He hasn’t even had the duplicitous courtesy to conduct the kind of elaborate propaganda campaign that Bush carried out in 2002 and 2003 to manufacture consent for an invasion. Clearly, Trump thinks that his personal desire for war is the only justification he needs. Even more than in 2003, the administration is offering both conflicting pretexts and unclear goals for war." Trump’s Iran War Could Be an Even Bigger Catastrophe Than Iraq https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-iran-war-threats-iraq/

Susan George – acclaimed political scientist and TNI’s honorary president – has passed away at the age of 91 Obituary https://www.tni.org/en/article/susan-george-obituary

"The UN experts also raised concerns about “serious compliance failures and botched redactions” that exposed sensitive victim information. More than 1,200 victims were identified in the documents that have been released so far. “The reluctance to fully disclose information or broaden investigations, has left many survivors feeling retraumatised and subjected to what they describe as ‘institutional gaslighting’,” the experts said." "Epstein files suggest acts that may amount to crimes against humanity, say UN experts: Independent experts appointed by human rights council speak of ‘grave’ nature regarding scale of atrocities against women and girls"

the Guardian

Epstein files suggest acts that may amount to crimes against humanity, say UN experts

Independent experts appointed by human rights council speak of ‘grave’ nature regarding scale of atrocities against women and girls

"Analysis by Channel 4 News has identified emails within the latest Epstein files that suggest that the mountain of information released by the US Department of Justice could amount to just a fraction of the total - potentially just 2% of the information that the FBI retrieved from Epstein's homes." Epstein Files: Investigation suggests just 2% of data released to public

Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts https://nyti.ms/4rRzZmN

Robert Duvall, 'Tender Mercies' Oscar winner, dies at 95 https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/robert-duvall-tender-mercies-oscar-winner-dies-95-2026-02-16/

Bud Cort, Who Starred in 1971’s ‘Harold and Maude,’ Dies at 77 https://nyti.ms/3ZzKD5M

"One of the promises of AI is that it can reduce workloads so employees can focus more on higher-value and more engaging tasks. But according to new research, AI tools don’t reduce work, they consistently intensify it: In the study, employees worked at a faster pace, took on a broader scope of tasks, and extended work into more hours of the day, often without being asked to do so. That may sound like a win, but it’s not quite so simple. These changes can be unsustainable, leading to workload creep, cognitive fatigue, burnout, and weakened decision-making. The productivity surge enjoyed at the beginning can give way to lower quality work, turnover, and other problems. To correct for this, companies need to adopt an “AI practice,” or a set of norms and standards around AI use that can include intentional pauses, sequencing work, and adding more human grounding."

Harvard Business Review

AI Doesn’t Reduce Work—It Intensifies It

One of the promises of AI is that it can reduce workloads so employees can focus more on higher-value and more engaging tasks. But according to new...

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Wednesday to slap back President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada, a rare if largely symbolic rebuke of the White House agenda as Republicans joined Democrats over the objections of GOP leadership. The tally, 219-211, was among the first times the House, controlled by Republicans, has confronted the president over a signature policy. The resolution seeks to end the national emergency Trump declared to impose the tariffs, though actually undoing the policy would require support from Trump himself, which is highly unlikely. The resolution next goes to the Senate." U.S. House votes to slap back Trump’s tariffs on Canada in rare bipartisan rebuke of White House agenda https://www.thestar.com/news/world/united-states/u-s-house-votes-to-slap-back-trumps-tariffs-on-canada-in-rare-bipartisan-rebuke/article_aad1db60-30f2-5d23-b588-d4ac79d62c46.html