Written By:
- Date published:
4:48 pm, April 11th, 2026 - 67 comments
Categories: Donald Trump, International, Iran, israel, nuclear war, Peace, war -
Tags:
Who can remember the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Probably not many of us. I was aged 1 at the time and had no idea what was happening although I am told that my father came home early from work that day convinced that World War 3 would start. And it would be a nuclear war and the world would never be the same.
Fast forward to now and the world again is facing a crisis of war.
There are some differences however.
Back in 1962 it was a battle of two testosterone fuelled military complexes seeking domination.
The USSR’s plan to have missiles located on Cuba was at one level understandable. The United States had the year before sited missiles on Turkey and this had caused the USSR a great deal of consternation. This was an attempt to equalise matters.
But the proposal was exceedingly dangerous. The time frame for properly recognizing an incoming swarm of missiles was already tight and 1960s technology was not great. Siting of missiles adjacent to each other’s border made the guesswork involved hazardous and life threatening.
Thankfully sanity prevailed. John F Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev reached a private agreement. The USSR took a back step and as a quid pro quo the United States removed its missiles from Turkey the following year and promised not to invade Cuba.
But for now things are entirely different.
For a start Donald J Trump is no John F Kennedy. Apart from being bi pedal and male and caucasian there is nothing similar between them at all.
Kennedy was capable of the most inspiring uplifting rhetoric. In contrast Trump’s utterances only fill me with dread.
As an example here are some of Trump’s “truths” sent out over the past six weeks about Iran. The formatting is his. Here they are:
If ever you needed concrete evidence in support of a charge of committing war crimes against the Iranian people, or invocation of the powers under the 25th amendment of the US constitution, then this should be it.
But wait, it gets worse.
One would think that a ceasefire would mean that nations would stop fighting for a while and see if they could sort out things peacefully, wouldn’t you?
Israel does not see it that way. Immediately after the ceasefire was announced they increased attacks on Lebanese towns. They don’t want peace. They have repeatedly frustrated all attempts to wind down and stop the fighting.
And why would this be? Why would Netanyahu do this? Could it be that he wishes to further delay the case against him alleging bribery, fraud and breach of trust? What a place to put a Prime Minister in? If he gets his country to continue fighting he puts off a trial that could see him imprisoned.
We should not be surprised. Israel’s continued attacks on Palestinians showed a similar indifference to the terms of an agreement that it had purportedly reached.
From the Guardian:
For two years after the October 2023 attacks, Netanyahu undermined ceasefire talks with Hamas in Gaza and blocked potential deals by adding new conditions or changing his mind at the last minute. He also tried to stall negotiations by assassinating Hamas leaders involved in the talks, and even ordered a brazen Israeli airstrike on Hamas officials meeting in Qatar, a US ally, to consider a ceasefire proposal that had been submitted by Israel and Washington.
And America was implicated. Again from the Guardian:
Despite Netanyahu’s obstinance, Israel continued to receive unconditional political support and tens of billions of dollars in US weapons, under both Joe Biden’s administration and Trump’s. Is it any surprise that Netanyahu concluded that Israel can bomb virtually anyone and anywhere in the Middle East, with impunity? By late 2025, Israel had attacked Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar and Yemen that year – without losing the flow of US weapons or Washington’s political cover at the United Nations and other international institutions. Of course, Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which killed at least 70,000 Palestinians and instigated a famine, paved the way for Israel to flout international law.
And Trump’s motivation? Jeffrey Sachs thinks that he is a malignant narcissist and a psychopath. Seems to ring true.
There is also the allegation of insider trading by one or more persons connected to Trump the extent of which has never previously been seen.
All this instability and chopping and changing means that someone with some cash and a bit of notice can make lots of money.
The claim that Lebanon is not included in the cease fire is bizarre. Was the intent to only stop half of the war? Can someone please release the text of the agreement so that this can be determined. Otherwise it appears that one side is saying porkies and I don’t think it is Iran.
And the New Zealand Government has again been put on the spot.
Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Jordan, Sierra Leone, United Kingdom, Switzerland and Japan have released this joint statement urging an end to hostilities in Lebanon. New Zealand was notable because it was missing although it has signed up to this subsequent statement. The second statement had a reference to the Strait of Hormuz and said that Governments would “contribute to ensuring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.” Is this the reason the first statement was not signed up to?
The Catholic Church has stood up loud and proud and the Pope has said this:
Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs. Military action will not create space for freedom or times of #Peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples.
The pseudo Christians in the White House should reflect on this. And threatening the Vatican with violence must count as a new low, even for the Trump White House.
And in the most bizarre recent event Melania Trump did a stand up to deny that she had never, ever been on Epstein Island, flown on his plane or had sexual relations with him.
This led to a lot of speculation inclding this:
The Cuban Missile Crisis was solved by responsible leadership displayed by leaders who understood the threat of nuclear war and how it could destroy the world.
I am really worried that the current leadership involved are hopelessly compromised, hopelessly ill informed, and totally incapable of providing the leadership that we need now.
"I am really worried that the current leadership involved are hopelessly compromised, hopelessly ill informed, and totally incapable of providing the leadership that we need now….."
Same in little old NZ……….
Luxon, Winston & Seymour appear to be totally naive and not up with the play. They appear to be following instruction's from their handler's and sponsors in the USA ???
Three Scaramucci's
Anthony Scaramucci
@Scaramucci
5D ♟️ Chess:
Trump’s “victory timeline” claims
Mar 3: "We won the war."
Mar 7: "We defeated Iran."
[…]
Praise be to Allah."
April 6 :a whole civilization will die
April 7: total and complete victory
April8: objectives were met
https://xcancel.com/Scaramucci/status/2041906761867591783
Too clever by half: they're playing us for fools.
The little bells on the jester's cockscomb are going jingle-jangle.
The Cuban missile crisis involved two parties that wanted to avoid getting their own people killed. This crisis involves only one party that wants to avoid that, and another that thinks getting everyone killed is great because they'll all go to Heaven and it will bring the Day of Judgement closer. That second party can never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Why? How exactly could a ceasefire negotiated between Iran and the USA by Pakistani officials include a separate war in Lebanon? I mean, kudos to Iran for finally making it explicit that southern Lebanon and the terrorists running it belong to Iran, but how does anything negotiated between those three parties compel Israel?
It really hasn't, because MFA won't share your obviously incorrect view that a ceasefire negotiated between Iran and the USA somehow compels Israel and Lebanon. Our government has to respect the sovereignty of those two countries, not pretend they're simply colonial possessions subject to orders from superiors.
The Israeli government wants the IDF to occupy up to the Litani River. This in no way assists with the disarming of Hezbollah (their stockpile of missiles is further north).
The government of Lebanon also wants Hezbollah disarmed and should be the Israeli partner in this. So does and should the Arab League.
Only Netanyahu could do something so stupid.
His ultra-nationalist (the two fascists) coalition partners have driven the self-appointed golem to madness.
Whatever opinion we have about Israel's response to Hizb'allah's attacks on it, there's no basis for claiming that Iran, the USA or Pakistan (or anyone else) can arbitrarily declare a ceasefire on Israel's behalf.
The American President could do so whenever he wanted.
Well, he could try. The assumption that Israel's military capability is completely dependent on the US is refuted by the fact that it's previously fought off multiple of its neighbours with little to no US military equipment or cooperation.
However, even if he could do that, he hasn't. There remains no basis to claim that a ceasefire between two warring parties includes third and fourth parties in a separate conflict.
Really!!!
Check out this. (Sorry can't copy the charts which belie your above statement)
https://www.cfr.org/articles/us-aid-israel-four-charts
The annual support is quite small (Israel does not need it – but it is a match for aid to Jordan and Egypt).
But it goes up a lot during wars. This incentivises resort to use of force.
Graph showing the spending spikes
73-74
78-80
2023-
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Oj7yE/7/
"…the charts which belie your above statement."
They really don't. Despite the reference to Israel being the largest cumulative recipient since 1946, the graphs show that most of the aid has been provided since the Yom Kippur war in 1973. So, in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, Israel successfully fought multiple neighbours with little to no US equipment or assistance. The loss of current US support would be a blow, but history shows they can get by without it.
From my link above:
And in the 1960s most of its arms imports came from France. That didn't give France a say in Israeli policy. It's a country that's used to making its own way in the world.
Perhaps you might investigate the concept of National Power* – the sum of all resources available to a nation in the pursuit of national objectives.
Being a small country in area and natural resources Israel has to import much of the material for its large military – whether that was France or now the US and Germany**. Over $US300B total imports to Israel from the US alone. Despite its technological advantage and its high concentration of solar for energy, Israel simply does not have the natural resources to carry on the intense warfare it is now doing alone.
* No nothing to do with the NZ National Party.
** Germany has placed restrictions on the employment of its munitions in Gaza.
Israel needs to be disarmed IMHO ???
Two methods of restraint
*The US UNSC veto being unavailable
*cutting off funded arms supply or offensive weapons
"Who will put the bell on the cat?"
How exactly could a ceasefire negotiated between Iran and the USA by Pakistani officials include a separate war in Lebanon?
It is part of the same war. And the Pakistani Prime Minister said this when he announced the cease fire:
With the greatest humility, I am pleased to announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
I can't imagine him not having authority from the US to use this particular text.
Besides the Lebanon war involves proxies of the US and Iran fighting each other. Of course it should be included.
I see the problem: you've lost track of the fact that Israel is a sovereign state with its own government, the same as NZ is. For the record, neither the Prime Minister of Pakistan nor the President of the United States has the authority to commit the state of Israel to anything, no more than they have the authority to commit NZ to anything. If Iran wanted Israel included in the ceasefire, it should have included Israel in the negotiations.
That said, we should be grateful to the Islamic Republic for this tacit admission that Hizb'allah is an Iranian force and that it's operating an Iranian state-within-a-state inside Lebanon.
Are you suggesting that the Iranians and Pakistanis with all of their breain power did not address the issue? The message from the Pakistani PM directly addressed the issue.
Besides the US can and should stop arming Israel. The problem is then solved.
Israel's stocks are that low that even China has publicly promised to nuke them if they use nuclear weapons. They are loathed by most of the world now and if it was up to me I would send their local ambassador packing.
They cannot be trusted. Think of the repeated breaches of cease fire agreements over Gaza.
Until they change the world is going to continue to live on a knife edge. THe sooner that Netanyahu is in chains the better.
I'm not sure what you mean by "directly addressed the issue." They directly asserted that Lebanon was included in the ceasefire, but that assertion's meaningless unless they'd actually talked to Israel and it had agreed to a ceasefire. No-one's claimed to have actually discussed it with Israel, as far as I've seen.
The official message from the Pakistani PM suggests this did happen. If the Israelis say it did not they should prove it.
Given that no nation apart from the US trusts them any more this could be difficult.
The Israelis haven't said anything about it and it's not up to them to prove a negative. Burden of proof is on the people making a so-far completely unsubstantiated claim.
I understand the frustration, but that view feels a bit idealistic and doesn’t fully account for the strategic reality.
Expecting Israel to disarm raises a basic question. What happens to its security immediately after?
I agree the US has leverage and could reassess its support, but saying “stop arming Israel and the problem is solved” oversimplifies a very complex situation.
There are legitimate criticisms of Israel’s actions, but any real solution likely requires changes from multiple sides, not just one.
What other nations are engaging in genocide?
Surely that should be a base line for the US?
Engage in genocide and we will not give you any more weapons.
It is the least that the land of the free and home of the brave should do.
Please don't interpret this as me defending Israel, because I am certainly not. but there are two very bad players involved here, not just one.
650 Missiles have been fired at Israel since the war began. The vast majority haven't made their target because of Israel's defence systems. But if they had hit as intended, I think we would also be describing that as genocide.
Iran's official policy is Israel is illegitimate, and senior leaders have repeatedly called for its elimination.
If Israel disarms – what happens next?
That's not a reason to support what Israel does, but it explains why the US will never abandon them.
Only one has engaged in mass scale genocide, attacks on schools and hospitals and reporters. I find it difficult to say the two are comparable.
I think you are missing my point so I will leave it there.
This narrative of the missile exchanges is quite faulty.
Israel's missile defense systems are at best about 20% effective (probably closer to 5%). There is very strict censorship inside Israel at present for when missiles land and available satellite images are being made hard to access which is why a lot of the results are not so visible. The reason we don't call this a genocide is because Iran's targets are basically military in nature. These get passed off as civilian targets in many cases which occurs both because Iran's missiles sometimes have accuracy issues and because the missile defense hits cause missiles to veer off target (deflections which don't explode the payload often happen) and also because lots of Israel's military bases are fundamentally nestled in with built up civilian infrastructure.
We will find out what happens with disarmament when Israel starts running very short of missile defense. Going by recent history this is when Israel backs off and agrees to a ceasefire (while re-arming) while Iran was never the aggressor no matter how well or poorly Israel was defended.
Devaluing the word 'genocide' to the point where it's just a synonym for 'war' gets us nowhere. Yes, one party to the war in Gaza has expressed genocidal intent and demonstrated a willingness to commit indiscriminate mass murder to further that intent, but that party is the government of Gaza, not Israel. Please take serious issues seriously.
Israel has not maintained any of the ceasefires its agreed since 2023. It should hardly be a surprise that they didn't ceasefire in Lebanon this time as they didn't ceasefire in Lebanon under the 2024 agreement they signed directly. I imagine Iran was comfortable with Israel not being directly involved in the negotiation as they rightly understood they are both untrustworthy in anything they agree anyway and ultimately need the US to leash them.
The lyrics.
Paddystinian
@Paddystinian
New Lego-Style Soundtrack: Donald Trump: Maniac in Charge 🔥
https://xcancel.com/Paddystinian/status/2042353363468046679
Ezra Klein has a smart line that the only civilisation that got destroyed was America's.
I’m not usually a fan of foreign policy by way of Trump-bashing. But in this case, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that this was a poorly conceived conflict from the outset.
What’s more concerning is how it’s being brought to a close. The apparent push for a ceasefire doesn’t seem to resolve the underlying issues that led to the escalation in the first place. Instead, it risks freezing the situation in a way that shifts the consequences onto regional actors, global trade routes, and everyone else who now has to live with the instability created.
That points to a style of decision-making that is short-term, reactive, and heavily influenced by immediate political pressures rather than a coherent strategy. If I were an Iranian negotiator, I’d be disinclined to place much weight on U.S. commitments under those conditions.
It’s not so much that the U.S. has lost: because it hasn’t, either politically or militarily. It’s that the outcome doesn’t appear to justify the costs, or meaningfully resolve the ever-shifting set of problems it purportedly set out to address
Particularly for the Gulf states. There's no going back to the previous relationship now that Iran's fired thousands of missiles and drones at them, and it looks like all that the US and Israel achieved for that was 'mowing the lawn.'
So now Trump has ordered the US military to close the Strait of Hormuz.
That's work.
To those “who pay tolls to Iran” to get through.
With no peace deal, Iran exploits war-time environment to legitimise a security toll/block on access.
It is the same logic Houthi use, whenever they fly off a nothing event missile, they claim being involved in a war allows them to threaten access & or attack Red Sea shipping.
There would seem to be no point in Iran agreeing to a peace deal: they might have peace for a couple of years, after which time the US and Isreal would attack them all over again.
Unless of course they turn the country, or the Strait of Hormuz, over to US control. I cannot see them agreeing to that.
Without a peace deal, the gardening can resume.
A peace that ends that risk has utility, even for a regime with a regional agenda.
Obscure comment. Hard to comprehend.
Is ‘gardening’ related to the 'mowing' euphemism, the risk being asymmetric?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass
It's an Americanism – the US has urban covenants, including rules on mowing the lawn (nuisance neighbours) property values.
It's a pun on the OT and NT covenants.
Judeo Christian and others.
God and mammon, thus Trump building plans in Gaza etc.
Too deep for me, I'm afraid.
Then say nothing.
Keep asking for clarification, if you think it’s worthwhile. Can’t hurt, imo.
He has not asked for clarification.
Indeed, although “Hard to comprehend.” and “"Too deep for me, I’m afraid." were clear enough, imho, as was "Then say nothing."
He said, a peace would not last.
I said, there has been no Israel-Hamas peace, and the history of that "gardening" is well known.
Yes, the history of conflict and the peace process is well known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_process
Here's a link to a personal account of rebellious gardening in Gaza.
Can't help wondering how I'd survive if I was a Gazan right now.
https://truthout.org/articles/gaza-farmland-is-destroyed-but-some-are-growing-food-even-while-displaced/
Yup.
Thus the last threat to take out Iranian power stations (and bridges, that part is psychological warfare – based on a religious metaphor of crossing over a bridge to after-life in Iranian and Moslem culture).
The strategic threat is the power grid connection to the oil industry exports.
The move to embargo oil exports from ports is a retaliation for the attack on the east-west pipeline (at a pumping station) to the Red Sea.
The message to China, control Iran or become part of the world economy impacted.
Yes, exactly. The idea that Iran will be allowed to get away with tolling international shipping is a non-starter. If the democracies' ships are refused passage, there's no reason for the democracies to allow Iran's customers' ships through.
At least Trump has finally found something the USA and Iran can agree on.
Although as per usual I doubt the Trump administration has thought it through. Wargame this, Hegseth – a Chinese tanker pays the toll and is escorted by a Chinese warship through the strait…
Meh, the Chinese tankers are not required to pay tolls.
Even Trump is not that stupid.
It’s telling that you attribute no blame to the Islamist extremism from the Iranian regime.
Typical of the current left- Trump bad so whatever he is against must be right.
Was the Strait of Hormuz closed 6 weeks ago before Trrump bombed Iran starting 6 weeks ago?
NO.
Was there a massive global energy and economic crisis before Trump bombed Iran starting 6 weeks ago?
NO
Who exactly is the extremist regime?
Still the Iranians….
They were happy to fight a mainly proxy war against Israel while occasionally lobbing a few dozen medium range ballistic missiles for emphasis. The escalation was absolutely by choice of Israel and the US.
In all instances I can think of where Iran has lobbed a few dozen medium range ballistic missiles is where Israel has first attacked Iran.
shrug Are we forgetting the proxy groups Iran has funded, armed, and trained over decades?
It’s entirely possible that Iran is a destabilising regional actor that has used terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy to target civilians. At the same time, Israel and the US can be acting in ways that are escalatory and, in some cases, meet the threshold of war crimes.
The trick is these two facts don’t cancel each other out.
I'm sure you don't need a list of the war crimes of the United States.
The Trump regime is an extremist regime. Go ahead and argue the toss on that one.
Nope. It's pretty long.
I'm not going to argue over whether or not Trump's government is an extremist one: it clearly is.
However, that doesn't magically make Iran the 'good' side. Or excuse their own war crimes and violations of international law.
IMO Pres Trump/VP Vance never wanted negotiations to progress to any peaceful resolution.The signs were, and have been, there all along…
The crux which began…
I read a lot….but had not previously heard of Sarah Kendzior. (but I had known of Robert Friedman, sadly passed) Both amazingly brave, erudite writers.
Knowledge of, and about, our World is so important to Be Aware …
Sarah writes here…
That's quite a read, PLA!
"The tragedy is that it’s the rest of the world that is out of options: other than to show our opposition, retain our moral code, and help each other the best we can."
Sets you back on your heels a bit, doesn't it!
Know your enemy…..(Includes the Legend, and Stand Up Guy…. Tom Morello et al, also of Prophets of Rage..and Axis of Justice)
I see the US has announced that it is blockading the strait now.
That makes sense in some respects so far as getting a negotiated solution is concerned. Iran was selectively letting vessels through, and generating income from that, along with supporting oil to its own allies.
If Iran isn't able to export its oil, then it is in a major economic bind itself. Plus, the likes of China that are customers of Iran, are likely to put pressure on Iran to come to the party. And, also likely to restrain what Iran can do in response.
Yup, i was too young for the Cuban Missile Crisis. I caught up with it by reading various history texts (written by Western authors) and watching the dramatisation "Thirteen Days" to try to understand the rising tension between the USA and USSR. (The most poignant moment is when Ken Costner's character is waiting in an ante-room to the Soviet Ambassador's office whilst Robert F Kennedy and Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin nut out an unofficial agreement which might just save Earth from atomic conflagration and nuclear winter.)
Costner's character sees a Russian woman in the same ante-room and the look of dread on her face is evident. In an act of humanity, Costner reassures her.
Ok, Hollywood isn't known for historical accuracy, but the human race stood at the abyss for a moment in 1962 and there are few ways to understand the enormity of it all.
Kennedy and Khruschev averted species suicide because (a) they were intelligent, serious men but more importantly (b) BOTH HAD SERVED DURING WWII. Both understood war.
Trump has no understanding of war. None. He derides people who have served in the military, sometimes making the "ultimate sacifice". He plays games.
Trump – a man who never faced death on a battlefield. He has the nuclear codes.
If that frightens you, rest assured, that just proves you are sane.