Eve Ottenberg

Eve Ottenberg

   Over the weekend, vice president J.D. Vance sojourned to Islamabad to negotiate an end to the Iran War. Given that the U.S. and Israel sabotaged the two previous negotiations with the Persian nation, Iran had good reason to be skeptical. It was correct. The U.S. diplomatic amateurs utterly failed to understand who has the upper hand in this imbroglio, namely Iran, and thus made shockingly unrealistic demands. Now we'll see whether Tehran's diplomats survive the usually fatal process of negotiating with Trump's team of jokers.

   After Vance called it quits and despite Trump's threats to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, which would tank the world economy pronto, and his vociferations against China supplying weapons to Iran (Hello? Where has he been for the past month? Napping? Who does he think has been unpacking literally dozens of planeloads of military equipment in Tehran? I can tell you it's not Santa Claus, unless he's moved to Beijing), Washington wants peace, because, suffice it to say, its little "in/out" war on Iran did not go as planned. By the second month of the Iran War, the U.S. had lost planes – a not insignificant number – while six Russian submarines patrolled the Strait of Hormuz, two of them nuclear.  On April 7, Russia and China vetoed a UN security council resolution to open the Strait, thus finally striking back at the Empire's security council abuses. This veto just might have had something to do with Donald "Stone Age" Trump's fulminations the day before about terminating Iranian civilization. After all, Russia, China and Iran are de facto allies, regardless of the fine print in their security pacts, and Moscow and Tehran have lately been on the receiving end of some of Washington's very bloody nastiness, while Beijing knows full well its number is up next.

   None of these contortions – bloviations about the stone age, lousy security council proposals targeting Iran or the sudden appearance of Russian submarines – were a recipe for global harmony leading to American success, if not renewed hegemony. No. With seven planes shot down over Iran, three pilots extracted, at least one seriously wounded, the IRGC hammering Israel and the Gulf sheikdoms, while literally champing at the bit for an American invasion, for which they'd been training for decades, the U.S. was ready to throw in the towel. American assets in the region were torched, while Hezbollah, the Houthis, the IRGC and Iraqi militias all shocked Washington and Jerusalem by turning out to be formidable opponents. Well, live and learn. Maybe next time the geniuses in the white house will listen to the Cassandras wailing "don't do it!" about attacking Iran. Like they should have listened during Trump's first term about exiting Tehran's nuclear pact, because oh, bye the way, there's a new ayatollah in town, since the U.S./Israeli nitwits assassinated the old one, and he wants nukes.

   On April 5 came news that approximately 100 U.S. special forces were stranded inside Iran "after both MC-130 extraction aircraft suffered mechanical failures and would not take off, per Reuters," reported the HormuzLetter on X. "The mission entered Iran to extract the downed F-15 WSO, identified as a colonel, who evaded for 48 hours with a sprained ankle in a hilltop crevice. The U.S. jammed electronics and struck key roads around the site to prevent anyone from getting close." And if you believe this American "save the pilot" song and dance, don't forget the tooth fairy. What should you believe? Let me make a suggestion: the U.S. was very possibly attempting to filch enriched uranium from Natanz, which would explain the very large number of rescuers and their proximity to Natanz and Isfahan. But don't take my word for it. It was all over the freakin' internet. Read military expert Will Schryver on X April 6 or another military expert, Armchair Warlord on X April 5.

   Bolstering the uranium treasure hunt theory was the sheer size of the so-called rescue effort. As RT reported April 6, "it involved an immense armada of 155 U.S. aircraft, including four bombers, 64 fighter jets, 48 refueling tankers and 13 specialized aircraft. The operation also involved hundreds of special operations troops, including Navy SEAL Team 6 commandos…the U.S. suffered significant material losses. At least two transport planes became disabled at a remote Iranian airbase…and were deliberately destroyed by U.S. commanders…Two Black Hawk helicopters were reportedly struck by Iranian fire and an A-10 Warthog attack plane was hit but managed to limp back to Kuwaiti airspace where its crew ejected." Overall, the mission was not, ahem, a stunning success, if saving this pilot was even the mission's main objective rather than snatching Iranian uranium – because why else send in "hundreds" of special ops troops? For one pilot? I don't think so. Trump had announced he was going after the uranium, and I think that's what he tried to do.

   Meanwhile, RT also reported April 4 that two U.S. planes, an F-15E fighter and an A-10 attack plane, were both shot down by Iran April 3. "The losses occurred less than 48 hours after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Iran has 'no anti-aircraft equipment.'" Well, uh, apparently it does, 'cause how else is it shooting down U.S. planes? In addition to these two planes, Iran claimed "they downed five drones and missiles." Sounds to me like Iranian air defenses are in good working order, no matter what clueless el jefe in the white house believes. As all this was going on, "Iran claimed to have destroyed a C-130 military transport plane and two Black Hawk helicopters." Boy, that non-existent air defense sure is a doozy.

   Before April 3, the U.S. already lost jets. There were the supposedly friendly fire shoot-downs March 1 of three F-15E Strike Eagles over Kuwait. Friendly fire? Ho! Ho! More like irascible Kuwaiti pilots or armed Iranian drones. Then, two KC-135 Stratotanker refueling aircraft had a midair collision over Iraq March 12. One crashed, killing all six crew members. "On March 19," RT reports, "a U.S. F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian ground fire…The pilot, who suffered shrapnel wounds, managed to land the aircraft at a U.S. airbase." Then on March 27, Iranians destroyed an E-3 Sentry AWACS command and control aircraft at a Saudi Arabia airbase. These planes cost up to $500 million. The one struck literally split in two. So the price-tag for this imbecilic war, due to lost military hardware, is big, and that's not even counting the cost of the world's economy circling the drain.

   The rescue of the stranded airman got some play in American media, though you may be sure the chance that the massive deformity mounted to "extract" him was actually part of a mangled attempt to make off with Iran's enriched uranium – that got zero attention. After all, as the New York Times reported back on March 14, FCC chair, Brendan Carr threatened to revoke broadcasters' licenses over Iran War coverage. Carr decried liberal bias in broadcasts and accused broadcasters of "running hoaxes and news distortions." So nobody in corporate media was taking any chances on a steal-Iran's-uranium-mess-up story.

   To boost this bogus claim about hoaxes, "Carr shared a Truth Social post by president Trump that criticized the news media for its coverage of the war with Iran. Mr. Trump referred to a story, published by the Wall Street Journal that reported five American refueling planes had been struck in Saudi Arabia, claiming its headline was 'intentionally misleading.' He accused the news media of wanting the United States to lose the war." Well, what if it does? Hello? Who's got the high moral ground here? The government that launched an unprovoked war of choice on a peaceful nation of 92 million people and promptly commenced committing war crimes, bombing a girls' school and universities, or those citizens who would like to see this nauseating enterprise fail? And who says the news media needs to lie? That the U.S. and its proxy attack dog Israel are committing atrocities is unquestionable.

   Corporate media have likely been cowed by threats from Carr and Trump, so while they'll cover daring rescues of American airmen, bungling efforts to seize Iran's uranium is a reportorial no, no. Never underestimate the chilling effect of the white house's menacing bombast. Besides that, mainstream journalists have a sixth sense for exactly what's acceptable to their masters and anything exceedingly embarrassing to the American military sets off alarm bells.

   And just in case they needed any encouragement, they got it on April 6, when Trump threatened to jail the journalist he called "a sick person," over the Iran rescue raid leak. "We're going to go the media company that released [the information about the search in Iran for the pilot] and we're going to say 'National security, give it up [the source] or go to jail. The person that did the story will go to jail if he doesn't say.' It became a much more difficult operation because a leaker leaked. All of a sudden, the entire country of Iran knew that there was a pilot that was somewhere on their land that was fighting for his life."

   All this unpleasantness could of course have been avoided had Trump, in his first term, not yanked the U.S. out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, i.e. Obama's nuclear pact with Iran. It evidently offended Trump that anyone else, particularly Obama, whom he loathed, had negotiated a successful deal with Iran, and he claimed he'd get a better one. Well, a decade on and that hasn't happened. Instead, we've got a disaster with Iran that is destroying our vassals in the region, to say nothing of the world economy, to say nothing of thousands of innocent Iranians.

   In truth, the JPCOA was one of the very few decent things Barak "Assassinator in Chief and Don't Forget to Evict the Homeowners" Obama did. So it's doubly lamentable that Trump trashed the JPCOA, and frankly, I find it incomprehensible, since it led in a blindingly clear path straight to the current catastrophe. Sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone – no matter how much you hate your predecessor.

Eve Ottenberg

   Israel is losing on all fronts. And it's not just multiple Merkava tanks incinerated by Hezbollah or Tel Aviv high-rises pulverized by Iranian missiles. In the days before April 1, Israel lost the governments of Spain, France and Italy. And it ain't doin' too well with the U.K., either. In a word, Jerusalem lost Europe, except maybe for that one historically guilt-convulsed holdout – Germany. France forbade Israeli use of its airspace to transfer U.S. weapons for the Iran War; whereupon, tit for tat as it cut off its nose to spite its face, Israel halted defense spending with France.

   Meanwhile, back on March 11, Spain permanently withdrew its ambassador to Israel over Spanish opposition to the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, then at the end of March Spain blasted the new Israeli law allowing the death penalty for Palestinian prisoners, while Spanish prime minister Pedro Sanchez also accused Israel of trying to turn Lebanon into the titanic wreck it produced in Gaza; Spain also continues its large-scale arms embargo, so no technology, military equipment or weapons get sold to Israel, while its ports remain closed to ships carrying weapons to Israel. Lastly, Spain won't permit U.S.-Israel military efforts aimed at Iran to use Spanish military bases or airspace. So Spain, as far as Israel is concerned, is in the doghouse. Not that Spain could care less.

   Then on March 30, far-right Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni announced: "I accuse Israel of crossing the red line. I CONDEMN the massacre of Palestinian civilians and I announce that Italy will support European sanctions against Israel." By the way, if you think Meloni is a leftist, you need your head examined. If you think she's a soft, fuzzy humanitarian, you've got another thing coming. For her to get upset about Israeli abuse of Palestinians means it's ten times worse than whatever you could imagine.

   So when will those European Union sanctions against Israel come? The whole world waits for the other shoe to drop, but unfortunately that shoe is in Washington, and Berlin on the Potomac will never greenlight sanctions on its proxy attack dog in the Middle East. Still, the sanctions could come because the people of European countries have long condemned Israel for its genocide in Gaza. And when the governments chime in, that's a change. Spain is less surprising than France or Italy; it has long criticized Israel for its war crimes and overall barbarity. But Meloni? Who saw that coming? And as for Emmanual Macron, he's usually so busy checking which way the wind blows, that waiting for him to condemn a genocidal state felt like waiting for Godot.

   But even Macron finally got fed up. He and Meloni reached the end of their ropes with Israel, and Israel struck back. "Israel's Defense Ministry has announced retaliatory steps against France after U.S. president Donald Trump openly criticized [France] for refusing to allow access to its airspace for arms shipments being delivered to the Middle East," RT reported April 1. Trump called the Franch move "very unhelpful" and warned that the U.S. "will remember" it. Israeli defense mucky mucks termed France a nation that Israel does not consider "friendly." At the rate this is going that list of nations unfriendly to Israel will include the whole world except for the hyper-capitalist terror state headquartered in Washington. What can Jerusalem do to rectify this, assuming it cares to? End the Gaza genocide by letting in food and stopping slaughtering civilians, stop bombing Lebanon, withdraw from the West Bank and leave Iran the hell alone.

   Granted, things have been going downhill between France and Israel for some time. Last year, Macron recognized the state of Palestine, and he introduced an arms embargo on Israel in 2024. "Israeli defense firms have also been barred from showcasing products at French arms exhibitions," RT noted. Nonetheless, Macron's government extended a few olive branches to Israel lately, which snubbed them all. The Iran War, which Paris wants to distance itself from, only made things pricklier.

   Meanwhile, the EU urges decreased travel overall, as Iran energy cuts bite. Clearly European nations are not happy with this war, and Israel sports a big bullseye for their wrath. Indeed, on April 1, AP reported a "huge spike in oil prices…about a 70 percent price hike for gas and 60 percent for oil in Europe. Since the start of the war, the EU's bill for imported fossil fuels has jumped by 14 billion euros." On the same day, PBS headlined an article: "Oil and gas prices won't immediately return to normal even if the Iran War ends, EU warns." One EU bigwig admonished that "we will not go back to normal in the foreseeable future."

   The same headache afflicts the Trump imbeciles, because gas prices in the U.S. have jumped over $4 per gallon and are set to shoot through the roof, possibly hitting $5 or $6 per gallon in the near future, if Trump's wildly unpopular and stupendously stupid, unprovoked Iran War doesn't end. In short, there's little public tolerance for the nasty effects of attacking Iran, in the U.S. or the EU – where the chance of sanctions on Israel, a key instigator of this idiotic war, has been quite publicly discussed. The EU HAS already imposed sanctions on settlers for their pogroms in the West Bank and is apparently open to sanctioning far-right Israeli ministers – the sickening Bezalel Smotrich and Ben Gvir, whose repulsive policies are in the EU's crosshairs.

   On April 1, the EU Observer's headline asked, "Will the EU finally sanction Israel after the death penalty bill?" This bill, one of the most nauseating of the modern era, would enable Israel to execute Palestinian children for throwing stones; such a law alone places Israel outside the circle of civilized nations and condemns it of the most egregious barbarism – as if it didn't already stand convicted of that due to its genocide in Gaza. This is just one more nail in the coffin of Israel's supposed status as a civilized nation. This law is revolting, and the fact that it "could damage" relations with the EU is pitifully insufficient. It should sever them, unless the EU wants the taint of blood-stained guilt by association with a state's execution of children.

   For those in la la land, namely the Trump white house, well, they couldn't care less. The fact that el jefe supports a government that just legalized murdering children for stone throwing means less than nothing in their empty skulls. Which, of course, tells you everything you need to know about the Israeli-American Fourth Reich, to wit, that it lives up to its moniker. But the white house is too preoccupied with its moronic Iran War to notice that the abuses embodied in Israeli legalization of crimes against Palestinians just shot into the stratosphere.

   How preoccupied? Well, those of us who live in what Fidel Castro once called the heart of the enemy recently got news that we will apparently introduce ground troops into Iran, which sounds like a suicide mission, since the IRGC has been training for precisely this – an American invasion of their Europe-sized country, with its many mountain ranges and 92 million loyal inhabitants – for decades. Will our proxy Israel assist with this doomed endeavor? No. Jerusalem knows a loser when it sees one and besides, has enough problems getting hammered by daily barrages of Iranian and Hezbollah missiles, against which it no longer has any air defense. So Trump rides to the OK corral alone. This after a Black Hawk helicopter had to flee Iran April 3, and news came of shootdowns of multiple U.S. fighter jets, some of them possibly even our top-of-the-line boondoggle nonpareil stealth bombers, while American pilots who ejected, sought by Iranian police, had to scramble to safety. So no, overall, prospects for this invasive enterprise do not look good.

   What, you may ask, has the Empire and its proxy, Israel, got us into? A catastrophic war or a catastrophic war with a global economic collapse – you pick. And as the excellent Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy noted in a recent interview with Owen Jones, when things really go south, and Washington loses the Iran War, who do you think will get blamed? Well, Donald Trump will make sure it's not him. So that leaves Israel – already a pariah state with most of the world's population for its disgusting treatment of Palestinians generally and its genocide of Gaza in particular; recently shunned by several powerful European governments; a possible target of E.U. sanctions, and believe me, those sanctions will come when Trump decides to save his neck by pointing a finger at Israel. As Levy said – Israel will get blamed. So that's the end of Israel's allies – Europe and the U.S.

   Because Eurasia and the Global South already want nothing to do with Israel. In fact, according to the very knowledgeable commentator, Andrei Martyanov in an April 2 interview with Sharmine Narwani, Israel's behavior, like the U.S.'s, was deemed so atrocious that Russia privately warned both nations it would not tolerate a nuclear assault on Iran. Once the war is over, Russia may decide it has to get along with the U.S. But Israel? Not so much. Amirite?

Eve Ottenberg

   If there's one thing the Iran War has taught us – with its terrifyingly destructive hypersonic missiles, its record-time eviction of the U.S. from the Gulf and torching of all U.S. bases – it's that a war with China would be ten times worse. Because who do you think supplied Tehran with all that scarifying military hardware and the unbeatable Beidou satellite data on U.S. bases and troops? Beijing, that's who. Even though on March 28, China halted its ships exiting Hormuz. Did the Iranians warn them that things were about to go south in a big way or did the U.S. make China an offer it couldn't refuse, i.e. avoid Hormuz or we zap your tankers? How long will Beijing tolerate this? The Chinese could begin strangling rare earths to the U.S. at any moment. Then keep your ears open as U.S. weapons producers scream.

   Besides, how, exactly, would a U.S. assault on China go down? I'll tell you in two words: It wouldn't. Our vaunted aircraft carriers, which couldn't get close to Iran's coasts and still got hit, would have to lurk even further away from China, and even then, they'd still be sitting ducks. One of them suffered from a supposed laundry fire as it "approached" Iran; well, "approaching" China that would be a laundry fire tornado. So our multi-billion-dollar aircraft carriers would be sidelined – unless we wanted them destroyed. Which raises the question – how would we get close enough to the Chinese coast to attack it? All evidence suggests this would be much more difficult than zeroing in on Iran's coast – and we couldn't even do that.

   So maybe we'll use our famous stealth technology? Ho, ho! As China Pulse recently posted on X: "Goodbye to American air superiority. Chinese defense company Jingan Technology announced that its system intercepted radio signals emitted by a U.S. Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber over Iran…Jingan's system successfully captured radio signals emitted by the aircraft as it returned from a mission in Iran." This was before the news that Iran shot down several F-35s – the biggest stealth bomber boondoggle of all time. If Iran can "see" F-35s and China can "see" B-2s, the supposed stealth advantage of these weapons dissolves, though I must say any advantage to the F-35 was always opaque to me, what with its multiple takeoff and landing accidents and its finicky need for constant stroking and care.

   Meanwhile there's the American weapons production problem. Unlike the Five-Thousand-Year-Old-Civilization, we here in the U.S. don't actually produce much anymore. Oh, we create financial instruments, but not much actual stuff, due to our thoroughly financialized version of late capitalism – unlike China's industrial capitalism. What does this mean for war? Happily, that the U.S. can't really wage it. At least not as effectively as the generally pacific Eurasian behemoths.

   Because unlike China, our weapons production system doesn't operate 24/7. We have arms manufacturers sure, but they're not on the same sked as the ones in China. And then there are the rare earths and Beijing's near monopoly of them. The U.S. can't make weapons without rare earths. But it gets them all from…drumroll, where? You guessed it – China. And what do you think happens to that supply of rare earths if Washington attacks Beijing? It dries up instantly, as it did when Trump threatened tariffs – causing him to back off tout de suite. So the U.S. depends on China for its weapons – not a good arrangement for a hyper-capitalist terror state, because it's essentially planning to bite the hand that feeds it. When it bites, that food will just…stop.

   So the smart money would be on the U.S. ditching its plans to attack China over Taiwan and focusing instead on bullying tiny countries like Cuba in its backyard. Since it's already shown it can't beat Iran. But Cuba – yep, that's where the smart money is; or so you'd think, but you would be wrong. Not that Donald "Blockade Barbarian" Trump intends to leave the Cuban commies alone – oh, no way. But that's not the martial focus of the imperial people who really count. "Iran Is Real, But Defense Techies Still Prefer War Gaming China" reads a Responsible Statecraft headline March 27. If your response to that isn't "uh-oh," then all I've got to say is there is something wrong with you.

   From a recent forum, "one can't help but conclude that Silicon Valley's founders are far more comfortable wargaming a confrontation with China than tying their mission to an actual hot war in the Middle East that has a rising death toll and no clear exit strategy." Some attendees claimed the Iran Was "was just a distraction from American's main adversary: China. As one weapons company founder said: 'If the U.S. is sending its munitions stockpile to the Middle East that undercuts deterrence in the Pacific.'"

   The view from la la land, i.e. the Trump white house, is different. There, the Washington Post reported March 16, the Trump-Xi Jinping summit got postponed because el jefe wants Xi to help open Hormuz. Ain't gonna happen. Who does Trump think gives Tehran the satellite data on U.S. troops and bases, data that effectively helps Iran keeps the Strait closed? Duh, China. And whose ships does the great mind in the Oval Office think are allowed to pass through the Strait while western ones aren't? Uh, Chinese and Russian ships – oh and vessels of any country that expels the Israeli and U.S. ambassadors. And if Washington, won't let those ships pass, I predict turbulence ahead for the Empire. Meanwhile, white house megabrains have delayed Trump's trip to China to pressure Beijing to send warships to help the U.S. reopen the Strait. Well, be sure to send me a memo on how that is going. Beijing, I bet, was very impressed by this delay (not). Incidentally, Beijing – unlike the white house – "had not publicly confirmed the March 31-April 2 visit." Ouch.

   Then airhead commerce secretary Scott Bessent took to the airwaves to clarify that this delay is not due to Trump insisting "China police the Strait of Hormuz." One Wendy Cutler, former U.S. trade negotiator told us, "this evolution in explanations seems to be an effort to lessen tensions with Beijing by providing a more generic non-China-focused reason for any postponement." Anything you say, Wendy, but from my perch in the peanut gallery it looks like Don Corleone in the white house still smarts from attempts to slap tariffs on the Five-Thousand-Year-Old Civilization, which because of its rare earth monopoly proved to be tariff-proof.

   According to Sino-expert Brian Berletic on X March 13, the actual U.S. objective regarding Iran maybe "can't be said out loud (destroying the global economy, hoping to kill off China, while only weakening the U.S. in the process)." This would fit with strangling Beijing's oil lifeline from Caracas, though whether it amounts to a coherent, unified policy is doubtful. But Berletic sez otherwise: "The whole point of the U.S. invading Venezuela, attacking Iran, strangling China technologically for years is to strangle China completely." But "even with a U.S.-imposed blockade in place, China is likely to achieve energy independence in 5-10 years albeit at much greater cost – at which point the U.S. will have lost its remaining leverage over China."

   Who exactly is the villain here? Well, it's NOT the country that donated 15600 tons of rice to Cuba during a barbaric U.S.-imposed blockade that is killing infants in hospital NICUs; that country was China. The monster here is the country that initiated an unprovoked, stupendously stupid war on Iran, whose purpose, again per Berletic on March 27 "is toppling Iran and stopping the flow of energy from Iran and the rest of the region to China."

   Will the gaggle of Trump imbeciles succeed in throttling that flow of energy to Beijing? Doubtful. Because even if they interdict vessels headed to China in the Strait…there's always Russian oil and gas. So if the Trump gangsters can't block energy to China, will they at long last do what Washington has been threatening since maybe the Obama administration and its pivot to Asia, with an eye to a military assault? Well, let's see how their attack on Iran goes. Last I checked, it was a big loser, with Eurasian behemoths China and Russia assisting Iran, which now wants nukes, and with North Korea offering to open its arsenal to Tehran, and you know what that includes – nukes.

   So Trump's idiotic Iran War looks like a flop. And if Washington can't beat Tehran, please, pray tell, how will it arm-wrestle bigger, stronger, scarier Beijing into submission?