Summary
The moral imbeciles ruling the United States cannot even fathom the stakes of the game they are playing and America’s moral collapse is contributing to the strategic disaster that is POTUS Trump’s Ramadan War on Iran.
UPDATED:Jim Webb had some very fitting remarks on The Duran that I added at the end of the post.
What are the stakes exactly?
Shall We Play a Game of Global Thermonuclear War?
Beyond the obvious geo-strategic implications of a hyperpower blundering into a war with a major regional power — combat deaths of soldiers and civilians, potential global economic crisis/collapse, major realignment of the regional and global balance of power — there is even more at stake.
Finnish economic analyst Tuomas Malinen laid it out starkly last fall for the GnS Economics newsletter:
…the fact that attacking Iranian nuclear facilities would, most likely, engulf the region into a darkness, freeze Europe, plunge the world into an economic depression of never-before-seen scale and possibly even set the world ablaze.
…
A judgement failure in the Middle East leading to an eruption of a regional war and to the collapse of the global economy is probably the largest possible Black Swan risk in President Trump’s second term.
…
Iran is a much more formidable adversary than many thought. With Russia backing Tehran, chances of defeating Iran in a war are slim to none.
For those who need to hear from a more trusted name, I’ll quote from Professor Norman Finkelstein’s appearance yesterday on the Robinson Erhardt podcast serve to remind us what’s in the balance:
(MIT Professor Emeritus Ted Postol) said that Prime Minister Netanyahu is a homicidal maniac and he said it’s not true that Iran is far away from a bomb. He said they could within about 10 days construct one. And if Israel uses theirs, Iran will use theirs.
Now, beneath the veneer, the patina of a cool, objective MIT scientist, I inferred, I can’t say for sure, that he’s Jewish and because he mentioned at some point that his friends in Tel Aviv were saying how terrible the situation is. And you could see beneath the cool objective veneer he was concerned that Israel might cease to exist.
…
This is a deadly serious moment. This could be the one. I know as of the time we’re we’re recording it doesn’t feel it as it felt a few days ago when uh the Israelis and Americans attacked the nuclear the nuclear site in Iran and in return Iranians targeted a sites in the vicinity of Dimona and it looked pretty it was pretty scary.
I’m opening with this to draw on the credibility of two elder statesmen in Professors Postol and Finkelstein before invoking the specter of mass death.
The stakes are thus as high as possible and the corrupt, craven, incomprehending moral imbeciles ruling the United States are incapable of even fathoming the forces they are playing with.
Trump’s America as Rogue Power
Stephen Walt has a piece in Foreign Policy that accurately describes the Trump administration as it begins a major war of choice:
the United States is now acting like a predatory hegemon, exploiting positions of leverage built up over decades to exploit allies and adversaries alike. This zero-sum approach to nearly all relations with others includes a deep hostility toward most international institutions and norms, deliberately erratic behavior, and a tendency to treat other foreign leaders with ill-disguised contempt while expecting demeaning acts of submission and fealty from most of them. As the fallout from the war in Iran spreads throughout the region and around the world, it underscores that the administration either didn’t understand how its actions would affect other states or simply didn’t care.
…U.S. foreign policy is now in the hands of a remarkably incompetent set of officials, from the president on down. International influence depends on many things, but one of the key ingredients is other states’ belief that the people they have to deal with are smart, well-informed, and generally know what they are doing. At this point, does anyone in the higher echelons of the Trump administration merit that description? Not that I can see. Conducting foreign policy is a difficult business, and no government gets everything right, but this administration commits own goals on a weekly basis while insisting that it is infallible.
To make matters worse, some of these features are not going to be easy to correct after Trump leaves office, even if he is replaced by someone with very different views.
How corrupt and incompetent are we here in America? So corrupt that the dreaded military industrial complex upon which the empire’s power rest is so choked with grift it can no longer build effective weapons platforms.
$13 Billion and the Toilets Don’t Flush
We’ll let the manifest failure of one such weapons platform serve as our example.
It’s been a crappy week for the largest warship ever built.
A raging fire in its laundry facilities and persistently clogged toilets have taken the $13 billion USS Ford aircraft carrier out of the Iran fight — and it could remain out of service for a year.
The massive, 1,106-foot-long vessel left the Red Sea last week and has been docked in Crete for repairs since Monday, far from the air and sea attack on Iran it had joined two weeks earlier.
Damage to laundry facilities — essential on a floating city of nearly 4,500 sailors — is severe, lawmakers told The Post.
It got so bad that they were “taking helicopters to move their laundry to other ships so that it could be washed,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Lawmakers said the March 12 fire impacted multiple berthing areas, an indication smoke may have coursed through the ship’s massive air circulation system, fouling linens and mattresses, and making areas virtually unusable.
“I’m told that there are 400 sailors that spent many days sleeping on the floor. It’s been at sea now for almost a year, so that is an incredible stress on the whole crew,” added Reed, a retired Army officer.
Fire isn’t the only element at issue — so is water.
The ship’s high-tech sanitation system has had problems since at least 2020, with routine clogs, pricey fixes, and a green design that has caused repeat maintenance problems costing at least $4 million.
We’ll set aside the debates about whether the USS Ford was really this damaged by a laundry fire, if sabotage was involved, or if the Iranians actually hit the ship with a drone swarm as some have (probably mis-)interpreted POTUS Trump’s comments to mean.
The point is this hulk has been taken out of the theater of combat largely because, despite its enormous cost, the thing barely works.
Let’s hear more from Responsible Statecraft explaining the endemic systemic corruption that spent so much for so little combat utility:
In the early 2000s, Navy leaders decided to replace the existing fleet of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, which have provided reliable service for more than 50 years, with a newly designed ship. Doing so meant the contractor could milk the development process given that the government would reimburse the company for the research and development costs.
The process incentivized the inclusion of nearly two dozen new, unproven technologies. This complicated the development process and delayed delivery by at least three years and increased costs more than 25%, from $10.5 billion to $13.2 billion.
This spending has done little to improve the vessels’ capabilities. But the inclusion of so many new technologies did create economic opportunities all over the country. More than 200 suppliers, spread across the country, build components for the Ford-class program.
Note the sentence I bolded at the end. The scam of distributing the manufacture of these monstrosities is how the gravy is passed around the country via Congress.
William D. Hartung called this “political engineering” —- the strategy where defense contractors purposely spread the manufacturing of a single weapons system (like the F-35) across as many congressional districts as possible to ensure that canceling the program would cost local jobs, effectively forcing Congress to keep funding it regardless of performance — in his classic tome Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.
But more about the ship, because the thing is a literal (family blog) hole:
The Navy’s glitzy new aircraft carrier isn’t very good at launching aircraft, but the crew has even more reason to knock the ship’s delicate plumbing system. The vessel’s designers rejected a traditional sewage system and instead charged taxpayers to develop a vacuum system similar to the kind used in commercial aircraft, but scaled up to accommodate the needs of a 4,000 person crew.
The Government Accountability Office, however, warned in 2020 that the sewage system clogged frequently and required regular acid flushes to clear calcium buildups in the system’s narrow pipes. Each flush costs approximately $400,000.
Not surprisingly then, the Ford’s sewage system has been a constant source of trouble. Sailors report daily breakdowns of the system. NPR reported that during a four-day period in 2025, engineers logged 205 breakdowns. Embarked sailors are frequently told the heads (the nautical term for toilets) are unavailable for a period because technicians are making urgent repairs to the system.
I could pile on with comparable case studies of the F-35 from the U.S. General Accountability Office or the the Littoral Combat Ship class (“A $100,000,000,000 Billion U.S. Navy Mistake“), but the point is made: Team America is focused on grifting the Department on Defense, not building usable weapons.
Or as Will Schryver posted on X: “The US military industrial complex is a modestly scaled high-end fashion boutique. It is not capable of producing the necessary implements for a real war against a peer adversary.”
David Sirota and Jared Jacang Maher have outlined how the U.S. Congress reached this state of total corruption in their book Master Plan: The Hidden Plot To Legalize Corruption In America and I’ve discussed the process in a previous post.
The outcome of 50 years of deliberate effort to corrupt our legislative system is the Congress we know today: a collection of moral imbeciles and narcissists looking for payoffs and having little or no grasp of what they are actually doing.
Let’s look at a recent egregious example of this process in action, but first let’s set the context with some polling.
There Is Immense Opposition to Trump’s Iran War
Responsible Statecraft has the polling data:
A new poll released Wednesday found that, although 63% of Republicans support airstrikes against Iranian military targets, only 20% are in favor of deploying U.S. troops.
That’s only about 2 in 10 Republicans in favor of boots on the ground. Again, these are Republicans — including MAGA.
Among all Americans, according to the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 62% percent oppose deploying U.S. troops on the ground in Iran.
“Trump still has deep support among Republicans,” according to the poll summary, but the results indicate that he “risks frustrating his voters during a midterm election year if the United States gets involved in the kind of prolonged war in the Middle East that he promised to avoid.”
This new survey comes on the heels of several other ones that show Americans drawing a bright line sending ground troops into this war.
A Data for Progress poll from mid-March showed similar results, with 68% of all respondents saying they opposed deploying U.S. troops to Iran. Breaking down by party ID, 48% of Republicans, 85% of Democrats and 71% of independents said they were opposed to boots on the ground.
A Quinnipiac University poll taken between March 6 and 8 found that 74% of voters oppose U.S. ground troops in Iran, with only 20% supporting. In that poll, 52% of Republicans, 95% of Democrats and 75% of independents said they oppose.
So this ought to be a layup for the opposition party, right?
Right?!?
Hakeem Jeffries’ Delays War Powers Vote
According to The New York Times, the Democrats’ hands are tied:
House Democrats could again try to force a vote on a war powers resolution on Iran, after Republicans voted down a similar measure earlier this month. Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, said Tuesday that “when we present something on the floor, it’s our determination to win.” But Republicans in that chamber would be all but certain to block it.
But Ryan Grim and Zeteo point out there was a path to victory:
Nancy Mace gives Dems the votes to pass the War Powers resolution. Meeks said go talk to Republicans. Prem talked to Mace, I talked to Davidson. The votes are there.
If Dems don’t put it on the floor now it’s because they don’t want it to pass now. https://t.co/7MzpVJOyVb
— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) March 27, 2026
Those interested can read Jeffries’ excuses at Axios.
But I think Our Revolution boils down the situation pretty accurately:
As @ryangrim reported last night, Dems had the votes to pass the War Powers resolution. "If Dems don’t put it on the floor now it’s because they don’t want it to pass now," he said.
"If Dems say they oppose the war but won't force a vote, it reinforces the sense they're not… pic.twitter.com/eo9poIN5jJ
— Our Revolution (@OurRevolution) March 27, 2026
But I’ve got to keep moving, lots of ground to cover here and it’s not just Congressional Democrats that are moral imbeciles who either don’t understand the stakes or don’t care.
2028 Presidential Hopefuls Waffle on Genocide
Speaking of moral imbeciles, here’s opposition leader Gavin Newsom in action:
Newsom: "I revere Israel. Proud to support Israel. Deeply oppose Netanyahu. Deeply oppose the far right in the West Bank."
He is trying to pretend only Netenyhu is the problem. The settlers, the occupation, the genocide-that's Israeli policy, not a personality. You can't revere… pic.twitter.com/ejRc6RM5uc
— Ounka (@OunkaOnX) March 24, 2026
Gavin Newsom pulled a classic flip-flop on Israel. The Guardian has the deets:
The California governor, Gavin Newsom, backtracked on earlier remarks likening Israel to an “apartheid state” in a new interview with Politico published on Tuesday.
In the interview, the Democrat, who is widely expected to launch a presidential bid in 2028, said that when he used the term three weeks ago, he meant it to apply to Israel’s future should it continue on its present trajectory.
Asked whether he regrets using the term, Newsom said: “I do in this context. I said it, and I referenced why I used it – a Tom Friedman article – in that same sentence where Tom used it in the context of the direction that Bibi is going.”
Pressed further, he clarified he does not believe the term applies to Israel’s present. He added: “And that is a legitimate concern I have, that I share with Tom – that that direction, if that vision and that direction of the far right that Bibi is indulging, that if they see the full annexation of the West Bank, then that’s not something – that’s a word you may hear others use.”
When asked if he considers himself a Zionist, the governor did not respond directly: “I revere the state of Israel,” he answered. “I’m proud to support the state of Israel. I deeply, deeply oppose Bibi Netanyahu’s leadership, his opposition to the two-state solution and deeply oppose how he is indulging the far right as it relates to what’s going on in the West Bank.”
The original remarks came during a book tour event with Pod Save America’s Jon Favreau. At the time, Newsom said of Netanyahu: “He’s trying to stay out of jail. He’s got an election coming up. He’s potentially on the ropes. He’s got folks on the hardline that want to annex the West Bank. Friedman and others are talking about it appropriately, [as] sort of an apartheid state.”
Kentucky Governor Andy Bashear is providing no alternative:
Dem @GovAndyBeshear is declining to call Israel’s actions in Gaza “genocide.”
“That’s becoming one of those new litmus tests that we said we would never do as a party,” he told our @DashaBurns on #TheConversation.
Listen to the full interview: https://t.co/iMrcJwsgGU pic.twitter.com/4dvaLhPrEo
— POLITICO (@politico) March 27, 2026
The Democrats seem determined to recreate the fate of Keir Starmer’s Labour Party — sweep into office on a wave of Conservative Party failures and then utterly fail to provide an alternative or any form of productive leadership.
Check this out.
The Party of IdPol and Woke Goes Full Racist
Never go full racist.
But the Dem establishment just can’t resist. Boxed out of campaigning on popular issues by their loyalty to wealthy donors, they’ve decided it’s a sex and race deal. Per Axios:
Some top Democrats are quietly debating a fraught question: whether the party’s best bet for winning back the presidency in 2028 is to nominate a man — perhaps a straight, white, Christian man.
Their fear, divulged with dismay in group chats, at cocktail parties and increasingly in public, is that parts of the electorate are too biased to support a woman or other diverse candidate for president.
Former first lady Michelle Obama fueled such talk recently, saying the U.S. is “not ready for a woman.” Democratic strategists have put it bluntly, with several saying a version of “It has to be a white guy.”
I’ll let Nikhil Pal Singh handle the rebuttal:
Hillary invoked “hardworking white Americans” against Obama in ‘08, and then tried to discredit Bernie in ‘16 by saying “breaking up the big banks won’t end racism” toward black people. Democrats who play race/identity games to avoid political substance are not serious people. https://t.co/eFNIZc4GTS
— Nikhil Pal Singh (@nikhil_palsingh) March 30, 2026
This is the same Democrat establishment that thinks it is an urgent priority to distance the party from massively popular podcaster Hasan Piker (does no one remember the quest for a “Democratic Joe Rogan”?)
After POLITICO reported that Piker, the far left political streamer with millions of followers, will stump in Michigan with Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed next month, his history of divisive comments launched an avalanche of criticism from Republicans and Democrats.
Two of El-Sayed’s opponents, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and Rep. Haley Stevens, lambasted El-Sayed, with Stevens telling Jewish Insider “someone who’s campaigning with someone like that is not going to win in Michigan” and McMorrow saying Piker “says extremely offensive things in order to generate clicks and views and followers, which is not entirely different from somebody like Nick Fuentes,” comparing him to the antisemite nationalist influencer.
Zeteo blames centrist think tank Third Way:
prominent Democrats – ranging from elected members of Congress, to 2026 Senate candidates, to likely 2028 presidential hopefuls – are spending their time condemning Hasan Piker, the left-wing streamer and influencer, as part of a cancellation campaign spearheaded by Third way, the centrist think tank.
Third Way, which is funded by billionaires and corporate interests, has been quite open about its broader goal and ongoing campaign to marginalize the left. “We will be the chief opponent of the left in the 2028 Democratic presidential primary,” the organization’s president, Jon Cowan, recently pledged. Asked to define the kind of lefty candidates Third Way doesn’t like, he pinpointed pols who “are for Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, abolishing ICE, open borders.”
Cowan told the New York Times that Third Way will “probably spend $30 million to $50 million” toward this campaign over the next few years.
Again the polling data shows that the moral imbeciles leading the Democrats are choosing their big money donors over the popular will:
Here's everything Democratic voters agree with @hasanthehun over the Dem party.
– 95% Support Raising Taxes on Billionaires
– 85% Support Medicare-For-All
– 78% Supports Abolishing ICE
– 77% oppose US using military force to attack Iran
– 67% Believe Israel Committed Genocide pic.twitter.com/hRXlI8fNKu
— JulesNader386 (@Julesnader386) March 28, 2026
Speaking of Moral Imbeciles: Here’s Cory Booker
I gotta close with this off the chain example of obtuseness from zionist Senator Cory Booker:
Cory Booker was asked if he’d support Trump’s diplomatic efforts to end the war and weirdly says no, because he doesn’t support anything this administration does. Ok Trump sucks but can we end the war? This is crazy talk pic.twitter.com/GsUdMciGv1
— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) March 30, 2026
Ok, ok, I’ll end on a more hopeful note with this from Democratic Maine candidate for US Senate Graham Platner:
Graham Platner to Chuck Schumer: “You need to stop having a problem with the illegal wars we have been starting simply because of the paperwork that wasn’t done properly. You should be against them because they are fundamentally immoral, unethical, and illegal. We should have… pic.twitter.com/1YdnD3Dj1W
— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) March 27, 2026
Just as with the opposition to Trump’s ICE invasion of blue cities last year, citizens against the war will have to lead the fight without relying on the misleadership class of either party.
UPDATE: Jim Webb (not the former US Senator but the 30-something military analyst) appeared on The Duran today and when asked “Why does the US no longer do diplomacy?” he included this bit in his answer:
Jim Webb: What really poisoned (American diplomacy) was the global war on terrorism and the rise of neocons within the conservative and liberal ranks of both parties.
It’s a bunch of people who did not cut their teeth on any kind of battlefield.
If you look at the people who populated uh different administrations from the 60s, the 70s and the 80s, these were people who if they did not serve in World War II, they at least understood the toll of what a large conflict was and were motivated to have diplomatic solutions to problems before they got to a point where you had to commit large amounts of your youth into (war).
Flash forward to the people who brought us the Iraq war in 2003 followed by Yemen, Somalia, I mean the whole round around North Africa, Ukraine and they have become fixated on this notion that we can force change one way or the other. Even our diplomacy is coercive.
It is now sanctions based. We will cut you off economically. We have weaponized the dollar which is very much as you know making the rest of the world consider dropping it. That would be an unbelievable catastrophe for catastrophe for the United States.
We’ve had a very capable military for a very long time going back to the ’90s. We were the superpower. So it was an easy button to push and if you never really see the ramifications of what happens on the back end of that by comparison to other conflicts such as Vietnam, Korea, World War II, your casualty counts are pretty low.
You are inclined to do that over and over and over again. And it’s become, I can say from my experience in DC, it is a very popular notion to discuss in the salons and the brunch tables, that it’s not a big deal if we dump our guys in there to take out a regime.
What is a few dozen casualties?
Those people no longer have a connection to the military. They don’t have any friends who serve. They really don’t have family who serve. They don’t understand the cost. It becomes a very cold and borderline evil type of way to go about business.
Moral imbecility explained in under three minutes.