Month: June 2025

Libya Wasn’t Liberated. It Was Left in Pieces.

Introduction: The War That Disappeared

In 2011, NATO jets flew over Libya, dropping bombs in the name of humanitarian intervention. The goal, we were told, was to stop a massacre. The leaders of the United States, France, and the United Kingdom promised to protect civilians and help Libya build a new democracy.

Muammar Gaddafi was killed. The regime fell. But peace never came.

What followed was not freedom. It was chaos. Civil war. Open-air slave markets. Warlords carving the country into zones of control. And then, silence.

The world moved on. But Libya did not recover.

Part 1: How the Story Was Sold

The build-up to war began with panic. Western leaders warned that Gaddafi was about to slaughter the people of Benghazi. The media repeated these claims with urgency. There was little debate. Few asked for evidence.

The United Nations approved a no-fly zone, meant to prevent attacks on civilians. NATO took the lead. But very quickly, the mission expanded. It was no longer just about defense. It became an offensive campaign.

Airstrikes destroyed Libya’s military. Rebel forces advanced. Gaddafi tried to flee. He was captured and killed on the side of a desert road.

The war was declared a success. But the real story was only beginning.

Part 2: The Collapse No One Covered

After the regime fell, no real plan was in place. There was no working government, no national army, no roadmap for recovery.

Armed groups seized control of towns and oil fields. Militias clashed. Tribal divisions deepened. Outside powers began backing rival factions. The country split in two.

In the west, a government backed by the United Nations struggled to assert control. In the east, a former general named Khalifa Haftar built his own power base, supported by Egypt and the UAE. Turkey and Russia joined the fight. Libya became a battlefield for foreign agendas.

Law and order collapsed. Criminal networks grew. Migrants trying to reach Europe were captured and sold. In 2017, CNN filmed African men being auctioned in slave markets.

This was the outcome of a war that began with promises of protection.

Part 3: The Silence That Followed

For a few months, Libya was in every headline. Then it vanished. The cameras turned to Syria, then Ukraine, then Gaza. But Libya’s suffering never ended.

Basic services like electricity and water became unreliable. Hospitals lacked supplies. Schools closed. Millions were displaced.

Western governments, once eager to act, offered little help in rebuilding. The intervention was treated as a short-term military success. What happened afterward was someone else’s problem.

Even Barack Obama, who had supported the war, later admitted:

“Failing to plan for the day after… that was the worst mistake of my presidency.”

But by the time he said those words, Libya was already in pieces.

Conclusion: Lessons Ignored

Libya is not just a broken country. It is a warning.

It shows how quickly a moral cause can turn into long-term disaster. It shows how easily words like “protection” and “liberation” can be used to justify violence. It shows how little accountability exists when things fall apart.

Most of all, it reminds us that regime change is not a policy. It is an explosion. Once it happens, no one controls where the pieces fall.

The next time we are told that bombing a country will make it free, we should remember Libya.

Not the myth. The reality.

Regime Change Rinse & Repeat: The Playbook Behind Foreign Interventions

Introduction: The Same Movie, Different Country

Every few years, a new country becomes the center of attention. Politicians line up to condemn its leadership. Journalists repeat words like “dictator” and “threat.” Sanctions are imposed. Bombs eventually fall. And then, just as quickly, the headlines disappear.

From Iraq to Libya, from Afghanistan to Syria, the story keeps playing out. The details change, but the sequence remains the same. People suffer. Countries collapse. And those who promoted the war often move on, without taking responsibility.

This is the routine. It’s predictable, and it’s dangerous.

Step 1: Demonize the Leader

It starts with a campaign to turn the country’s leader into a symbol of evil. News outlets run stories about brutal crackdowns, corruption, and instability. Words like “madman,” “tyrant,” or “butcher” fill the headlines.

Some of it is true. Much of it is exaggerated. None of it is balanced.

Saddam Hussein was described as the next Hitler. Gaddafi was called a lunatic. Assad was blamed for every death in Syria, even when other armed groups were involved. These narratives serve a purpose: they prepare the public to accept the idea that regime change is not only justified — it’s urgent.

Example: In 2002, President George W. Bush called Saddam part of an “Axis of Evil,” linking him to weapons of mass destruction. There was no proof. But the phrase stuck.

Step 2: Isolate the Regime

Once the leader is cast as evil, the next step is isolation. Sanctions are imposed. Diplomats are expelled. International institutions are pressured to follow suit.

The goal is to weaken the regime and turn the people against it. But more often than not, it’s the people who suffer the most. Food and medicine become scarce. Inflation destroys savings. Infrastructure breaks down. And resentment builds — not always against the leader, but against the countries applying the pressure.

Example: U.S. sanctions on Venezuela deepened the country’s economic collapse. Hospitals ran out of supplies. Families skipped meals. But Nicolás Maduro stayed in power.

Step 3: Bomb for Peace

When sanctions fail, military action becomes the next step. It is rarely called war. Governments use phrases like “limited airstrikes,” “surgical operations,” or “protecting civilians.”

The bombs are dropped. The targets are hit. But the collateral damage is often enormous. And civilians pay the price.

Example: In 2011, NATO launched a bombing campaign in Libya. The mission was supposed to protect civilians in Benghazi. Within months, Gaddafi was dead, and Libya had no functioning government. Armed groups took over, and chaos spread.

Step 4: Install a New Government

With the old regime gone, it’s time to rebuild — or so the story goes. A new government is formed. Elections are held. Foreign advisors fly in.

But it rarely works. These governments lack legitimacy. Corruption spreads. Old power structures resurface. And the people, already exhausted, begin to lose hope.

Example: After the fall of Saddam Hussein, U.S. officials disbanded the Iraqi army and banned former Ba’ath Party members from public life. The result was chaos. Insurgencies rose. And out of that chaos, ISIS was born.

Step 5: Exit and Move On

Eventually, the foreign troops leave. The cameras turn away. And the people left behind are forgotten.

The country becomes a cautionary tale — or a footnote.

Example: In 2021, the U.S. left Afghanistan after nearly 20 years. The Taliban returned to power within days. Billions had been spent. Thousands had died. And yet, the end looked almost exactly like the beginning.

Final Thoughts: It’s Not About Democracy

If regime change was really about promoting freedom, we’d see interventions in places like Egypt or Saudi Arabia. But we don’t. Strategic interests decide where democracy matters — and where it doesn’t.

Chris Hedges, a journalist who has covered wars for decades, said it best:

“We don’t intervene to promote democracy. We intervene to control resources, markets, and influence.”

The next time you hear calls for intervention, ask yourself:
Who benefits?
What’s the evidence?
And who pays the price when it all falls apart?

Because once the pattern starts, it is very hard to stop. And once a country is broken, putting it back together is even harder.

Financial Anxiety Is the New Normal—And We’re All Hiding It



I have a job. I have a roof. I still can’t sleep.


I’ve never missed a rent payment.
I don’t have debt collectors calling me.
But at 2 a.m., I lie awake wondering if I’ll be okay a year from now.

They say I’m middle class.
I’ve got a job at the post office. My wife teaches third grade.
Together we bring in about $70,000. On paper, we’re doing fine.

But lately, fine feels like a house built on sand.


It’s the Prices That Keep Changing—And the Ground Beneath Me

I used to fill up my car for $40. Now it’s closer to $70.
Groceries? What used to be $120 a week is now $180—and we’ve cut meat, snacks, and the name brands.

Every month we say, “This is the month we’ll start saving again.”
Every month, something happens.

The water heater breaks.
The kid needs new shoes.
My blood pressure meds go up by twenty bucks.

It’s not that we’re irresponsible.
It’s that life costs too much to breathe easy.


After the Tariffs, Everything Got Tighter

It started small.
Electronics, tires, even laundry detergent—suddenly a few dollars more.

I didn’t connect it at first.
But my cousin who runs a repair shop said it plain:
“After those Trump tariffs hit, even spark plugs cost more. It all trickled down.”

What trickled down into our home wasn’t just higher prices—it was a new kind of fear.
A quiet, gnawing feeling that the math might stop working someday.


We Don’t Talk About It—Because Everyone’s Struggling

At church, nobody mentions money.
At work, we joke about gas prices and cancel lunch plans.

But I see it:

The coworker who’s always eating crackers.

The friend who skips birthday dinners.

My wife Googling “cheap meal prep for four.”


We all feel it.
We just don’t say it out loud.

Because shame is heavier than bills.
And most of us were raised to “just deal with it.”


I’m Not Poor. I’m Just… Afraid.

Afraid of layoffs. Of medical emergencies. Of being one accident away from not coping.

We don’t want luxuries.
We want breathing room.

A cushion. A break.
The freedom to not panic when the check engine light comes on.




That’s the new American anxiety.
Not hunger—but fragility.
Not joblessness—but joylessness.

And the worst part?
It’s so common, it doesn’t even feel like a crisis anymore.





When Sacred Walls Are Scarred: What the Toorak Synagogue Attack Really Reveals

From Twitter






[The silence in the synagogue was different that morning. Not sacred. Not solemn. Just broken.]

Someone had sprayed hateful symbols across the walls in the dead of night. Cold black paint bleeding into warm old stone. It wasn’t just vandalism. It was a message. And everyone in Toorak heard it, even those who pretend not to.

But here’s the thing. The message didn’t land the way the vandals wanted.




Holy Places Are Easy Targets. But They Carry Heavy Meaning

You ever notice how the places meant for prayer are the ones attacked first?

Because when you attack a sacred space, you strike at something deeper than identity. You strike at belonging.

The Toorak synagogue is not just a building. It is a memory keeper. It holds grief and joy. It holds weddings and funerals. It carries the whisper of prayers and the crackle of candles. To deface it is to scream into the face of peace itself.

We’ve seen it before.
In Charleston. In Christchurch. In Jerusalem. In Quebec City.

Dr. Deborah Lipstadt, the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, once said:
“Antisemitism isn’t just hatred of Jews. It’s a conspiracy theory that views Jews as manipulators of global power. That’s why antisemitic acts have such wide ripples. They tap into fear, not just bigotry.”




Graffiti Cannot Defeat Grace

Here’s what happened next.
The walls were scrubbed clean. Not by security guards or faceless workers. But by neighbors. By strangers. By friends who did not need to be Jewish to understand the wound.

People brought flowers. They brought food. They brought themselves.

A Muslim woman placed a rose at the door.
A Christian priest stood in silence nearby.
A schoolteacher came with her students to learn.
Even local politicians showed up. A little late. But still.

Because that is what grace looks like.
It shows up. Quietly. Without speeches.

Jonathan Sacks, the late Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, once wrote:
“The hate that begins with Jews never ends with Jews.”
That quote is a warning. But also a roadmap. We don’t fight hate by isolating it. We fight it by showing up where it lands and saying, “Not here. Not now.”




What Happens After We Repaint the Walls

We repaint. We rebuild. But do we reflect?

Why are young people still being radicalized online?
Why are swastikas so easy to draw and empathy so hard to teach?
Why are religious minorities still seen as outsiders in their own cities?

Dr. Susan Carland, Australian academic and Muslim public intellectual, said in a 2021 panel:
“You cannot shame someone out of hate. But you can surround them with enough examples of kindness that their ideas start to collapse.”

This is not just about the police or politicians.
This is about schools. About social media companies. About faith communities doing more than preaching.

It’s about teaching what reverence looks like — even if you don’t share someone’s religion.




Not Just a Jewish Story. A Human One.

This is not a crisis for one faith.
It is a test for all of us.

What do we do when a sacred space is attacked? Do we change the channel? Or do we change our mindset?

Do we let fear dictate our friendships? Or do we finally understand that we rise and fall together?

The people of Toorak chose to clean. To mourn. To protect.

Maybe that’s the real prayer. The one spoken without words.
A prayer made of hands holding scrub cloths. A daisy on a ledge. A candle still burning.

Veterans and the Anti-War Movement: A Call for Change

[The scent of tear gas still clung to his jacket.]

He hadn’t marched in years. His son was deployed to Iraq, and the old man found himself on the streets again. This time, he had a new sign: “Bring Them Home, For Real.” His first protest had been in 1969. Now it was 2004. Two wars, one weary heart, and the same flag waving overhead.

Is it still patriotic to question a war? Or has dissent become the new American tradition?

Red, White, and Protest: A Different Kind of Loyalty

You ever notice how protests always come with flags?

Not the burned ones—those make headlines. I mean the carried ones. Folded, unfurled, draped around shoulders. Protesters holding American flags upside down, not in hate, but in distress. Some stitched with peace signs. Others signed with names of the dead.

For many, the anti-war movement wasn’t about rejecting America. It was about rescuing it—from itself.

During the Vietnam War, students, musicians, and mothers didn’t just chant “Hell no, we won’t go” in rebellion. They said it because they believed a better America was possible. One that didn’t bomb rice paddies in the name of democracy. One that didn’t need body bags to feel strong.

The media labeled them radicals. But they saw themselves as citizens. Sometimes, better citizens than those giving the orders.

When Veterans Became the Conscience

Here’s what I noticed.

The most powerful voices against war? Often the ones who wore the uniform.

In 1985, a group of Vietnam veterans formed Veterans for Peace. They formed it not to burn their medals. Instead, they aimed to stop more wars from needing them. After 9/11, a younger generation joined in. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars brought forth a flood of disillusionment.

Groups like Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) emerged. They were soldiers who had seen the “Mission Accomplished” banner. They knew it was a lie. They didn’t protest because they hated America. They protested because they loved the people who came back in pieces, or didn’t come back at all.

Some testified in front of Congress. Others threw their medals onto barricades in D.C. A few just wrote blog posts from their VA hospital beds. But all of them were asking one thing:

Is serving your country the same as obeying it blindly?

Mothers in Headscarves and Combat Boots

A weird thing happened in the 2000s.

The image of the anti-war activist changed.

No longer just students in tie-dye. Now it was military moms in Texas. It included Black clergy in Georgia. There were Gold Star widows in Arizona. People like Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, camped outside George W. Bush’s ranch asking, “For what noble cause did my son die?”

Or Muslim Americans who marched against drone wars, holding photos of children who looked like their cousins. The anti-war movement expanded its voice. It wasn’t Left or Right anymore. It was human.

Can Love for Country Include Dissent?

Maybe that’s the real question.

The flag has been co-opted so often—by war hawks, by corporations, by those who demand silence. But what if patriotism means more than salutes and standing still?

What if it means kneeling, marching, questioning?

What if the bravest thing a citizen can do is say, “I love my country too much.” They may refuse to watch it kill blindly.

I saw a sign once that stuck with me. It said:

“Dissent is not disloyalty. Silence is.”

Maybe that’s the problem.

Or maybe that’s the beginning of something better.

How the Media Sells Wars: From Vietnam to Gaza

Each generation swears it will not be fooled again. And yet, time and again, the public is sold on new wars with old tactics. From Vietnam to Iraq, Libya to Ukraine, and now Gaza and Iran, the mechanisms are familiar. The messengers, often recycled. The media, too often complicit.

Wars are not just fought with bombs and boots. They are prepared through headlines, shaped by studio debates, and sold via fear-laced soundbites. This post examines how media coverage has played a central role in enabling wars. It does this by constructing compelling but often misleading narratives. These narratives override skepticism and drown out dissent.

Vietnam: The First Televised War

The Vietnam War marked the first time American households watched war unfold on their evening news. Initially, networks largely echoed the government line, portraying U.S. involvement as a necessary stand against communism.

Walter Cronkite’s famous 1968 broadcast, in which he said the war would end in stalemate, marked a turning point. Yet, until then, images of burning villages and casualty reports were presented with little context or critique. The Gulf of Tonkin incident—which led to a major escalation—was later revealed to be grossly misrepresented, if not fabricated.

Iraq 2003: Weapons of Mass Deception

The 2003 invasion of Iraq is perhaps the most infamous case of media-enabled warfare. It was sold on the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Cable networks aired breathless coverage of mobile weapons labs, mushroom clouds, and Colin Powell’s now-discredited UN speech.

The New York Times later admitted it failed in its duty, publishing unverified claims from sources like Ahmed Chalabi. Meanwhile, dissenting voices such as Scott Ritter and Hans Blix were sidelined.

Journalist Chris Hedges noted:

“The media gives credibility to people who have no business being taken seriously.”

Libya 2011: The Forgotten Fallout

In 2011, the media overwhelmingly supported the NATO-led intervention in Libya. News outlets echoed the line that Muammar Gaddafi was about to commit genocide in Benghazi. The result? Gaddafi was overthrown and killed. However, the country plunged into chaos. Open-air slave markets appeared in the years that followed.

Mainstream outlets rarely revisited the post-war consequences.

Ukraine 2022: Good vs Evil Framing

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine rightly sparked global outrage. But media coverage quickly adopted a moral binary: Ukraine as entirely noble, Russia as cartoonishly evil. This black-and-white narrative left little room to discuss NATO expansion or the role of Western interests in the region.

Experts like John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky, who offered critical historical perspectives, were rarely featured in major Western outlets.

Gaza 2023–2024: Language as a Weapon

Perhaps no conflict illustrates the role of language in war narratives more clearly than Israel’s war in Gaza. Terms like “clashes” and “retaliation” are selectively used. Palestinian deaths are often passive: “X people died,” versus “Israel was attacked by Hamas.”

CNN, BBC, and others have been criticized for underreporting civilian casualties or relying heavily on Israeli government sources without verification. Social media has forced some reckoning, with independent journalists like Motaz Azaiza and platforms like Al Jazeera gaining unprecedented visibility.

The Mechanics: How It Works

  1. Pretext: A dramatic event (real or inflated) triggers fear. Gulf of Tonkin. 9/11. Chemical attacks.
  2. Experts: Think tanks and former officials dominate airwaves. They often have undisclosed ties to defense contractors.
  3. Moral framing: The war is a fight for freedom, democracy, human rights. Never about oil, arms sales, or strategic positioning.
  4. Erasure of dissent: Voices questioning the narrative are painted as naive, traitorous, or pro-enemy.
  5. Limited coverage of aftermath: The camera moves on. The consequences fade.

Conclusion: The Cost of Compliance

The price of media complicity is measured in lives lost, regions destabilized, and truths buried. When the press becomes a participant in the drumbeat to war rather than a check on power, democracy falters.

To resist the next war narrative, we must remember the last. Skepticism is not cynicism. It is civic responsibility.

As Hedges said:

“The credibility of these media figures lies not in their accuracy, but in their usefulness to power.”

Let us be less useful. Let us remember. Let us ask better questions.

Permanent War Economy: Why Peace Is Bad for Business

The Profits of Perpetual Conflict: An Introduction

Why does it seem like there is always going to be a new war? The U.S. seems to be stuck in a cycle of endless military engagements. These range from Iraq and Afghanistan to Syria, Libya, and now Iran. This isn’t just about mistakes in foreign policy or failures of intelligence, though. It has to do with money. A lot of money.

Seymour Melman, an economist, came up with the term “permanent war economy” in the middle of the 20th century. He said that America’s growing reliance on military spending would hurt its economy and democracy. His warnings seem to have come true today. When defense contractors pay for think tanks, which then fill news panels and give politicians advice, peace is the norm. The plan is to go to war.

The Business Model of War

The defense contractors are the most important part of the war economy. Every year, the Pentagon gives billions of dollars in contracts to companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. The US defense budget in 2023 exceeded 850 billion dollars. This amount is greater than the combined budgets of the next ten countries.

War zones turn into places to do business:

Weapons systems such as fighter jets, drones, and missile defense systems

Private military companies like Blackwater and DynCorp

Surveillance tools, such as systems that can recognize faces

Companies that handle logistics and supplies, like KBR and Halliburton

Peace, on the other hand, puts this whole thing at risk.

Expert Opinion:

William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, says that we have created a situation. A massive network of interests depends on the military being active all the time. This network includes businesses, politicians, and the media. If the war ends, budgets will have to be cut. Workers will have to be let go. Facilities will have to be shut down. That makes it hard to make peace in both politics and the economy.

The Feedback Loop for the Think Tank

The American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council are think tanks. They regularly write policy papers. They also comment on the news that calls for military action. Weapons makers or friendly governments directly pay for many of them.

For instance, Raytheon has paid for events at CSIS while its former executives work in U.S. defense departments. This revolving door makes it so that military solutions are always preferred to diplomatic ones.

Media Amplification and Control of the Story

Chris Hedges, a journalist who used to work for the New York Times, says:

“The media gives people who shouldn’t be taken seriously a lot of power. They repeatedly consult voices that have been discredited. This happens not because these voices are experts, but because of who they represent.

Media outlets, which are more interested in ratings than in the truth, often spread stories that support war. The lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003 is the most famous example. During that time, networks kept saying things that weren’t true about weapons of mass destruction.

We see the same kinds of coverage of Iran today. People who are against interventionist policies are pushed to the side. In contrast, people who are for war are given a lot of attention.

The Human Cost of Making Money

People suffer while businesses make money. Brown University’s Costs of War Project says that:

More than 900,000 people have died in wars led by the U.S. since 9/11.

38 million people have had to leave their homes.

Direct and indirect costs have totaled eight trillion dollars.

This isn’t just a problem in the United States. It is a tragedy that happens all over the world because of money.

Is it possible to break the cycle?

More and more lawmakers, veterans, and academics are speaking out. The Quincy Institute and Veterans for Peace are two groups that want the U.S. to change its priorities. They want the U.S. to choose diplomacy over drones and aid over weapons.

Senator Bernie Sanders has said:

Reducing food aid and health programs is misguided. Allocating 850 billion dollars to the Pentagon is not only wrong, but it’s also detrimental to the economy.

But being angry isn’t enough to end the war economy. It calls for systemic change, closing revolving doors, and stopping the funding of propaganda.

In conclusion, a world without war

A permanent war economy makes it hard to find peace. But if war makes money, then peace needs to be made useful. That means backing voices that ask questions, pushing for journalism that looks into things, and holding leaders accountable.

We will stay stuck in a cycle with no end. There will be new enemies and new weapons. We will see no real peace in sight. This will continue until we question the profit motives behind every airstrike and deployment.

Chris Hedges on the New War Rhetoric Against Iran

The speed of Israel’s war on Iran is alarming. The vague justifications add to the concern. There is a flood of hawkish commentary. The breathless media coverage only intensifies the situation. It all feels hauntingly familiar. For those who remember 2003 or have studied the build-up to the Iraq War, the parallels are striking and disturbing.

Chris Hedges, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former New York Times correspondent, knows this playbook well. In a recent interview, he described the eerie similarities. Today’s rhetoric on Iran closely mirrors the campaign that led to the invasion of Iraq.

“I’m not stunned because I spent 20 years overseas covering various conflicts. Most of those who call for war use lies, myths, and half-truths to justify it. What does stun me is that we fall for it once again.” — Chris Hedges

Same Voices, Same Narrative

Hedges highlights the return of many of the same analysts and pundits. These are the think tank alumni who cheered the Iraq War. They have returned. They are once again saturating airwaves. This time, they are pushing for conflict with Iran. These figures, he says, are part of a permanent war ecosystem, funded by powerful lobbies and military contractors.

“They were wrong about Iraq. Wrong about Afghanistan. Wrong about Libya. Wrong about Syria. And yet they remain media regulars. Why? Because of who they represent—not what they know.”

He names institutions like the American Enterprise Institute and the Atlantic Council. These organizations have long ties to the defense industry. They are also connected to pro-Israel advocacy groups. These think tanks provide a revolving door for war advocates, regardless of the facts.

The Language of War

The media’s role isn’t passive. Through cherry-picked intelligence and unchallenged talking points, it amplifies narratives designed to manufacture consent.

One clip from CNN in 2003 warned that Saddam Hussein would “never give up weapons of mass destruction.” A recent Fox News segment justified Israeli airstrikes by warning of “21–22 weapons” supposedly endangering the world.

Hedges reminds us: “According to the U.S. intelligence community and the IAEA, Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Yet Netanyahu and his allies have claimed—since 1995—that Iran is just about to go nuclear. It’s fiction.”

Trump, Carlson, and MAGA Tensions

Donald Trump, who once promised to end America’s “forever wars,” has now thrown his support behind strikes on Iran. Hedges isn’t surprised.

“Trump is impulsive. He doesn’t understand the region. They’ve flattered his ego and convinced him that America’s military power is his personal brand.”

But not everyone in Trump’s orbit agrees. Tucker Carlson, a leading MAGA voice, has openly called the war “reckless” and “unnecessary.” His opposition, says Hedges, could fracture support—unless American soldiers are killed.

“If Iran retaliates and U.S. service members die, nationalism will surge. Flags will wave. And even opponents may be swept into support.”

Have We Learned Nothing?

If Iraq was the textbook case in how media can sell a war, Hedges fears we’ve ignored the lesson. The core failure isn’t public ignorance, he says—it’s media complicity.

“The media elevates the same discredited voices. It ignores verifiable intelligence. It marginalizes rational debate. That’s not an accident—it’s the goal.”

🎥 Credit: Interview with Chris Hedges via YouTube

🖊️ Quote Source: Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and host of The Chris Hedges Report

America’s War on International Law: How US-Iran Tensions Expose the Collapse of UN Authority

The rules-based international order that promised to protect smaller nations like Pakistan is crumbling before our eyes. The escalating US-Iran military tensions represent the latest chapter in America’s systematic assault on the United Nations Charter. While the world debates the wisdom of military strikes against Iranian targets, the fundamental question goes deeper. What happens to global stability when the world’s most powerful nation routinely ignores the very international laws it helped create?

The stakes are incredibly high for countries like Pakistan. They have long relied on international law as a shield against great power aggression. America is once again considering military action without UN Security Council authorization. It may potentially conduct this action. We’re witnessing the final gasps of the multilateral system that emerged from the ashes of World War II.

The dangerous precedent of unauthorized military action

The pattern is now unmistakable and deeply troubling. The United States has acted without UN authorization from Iraq in 2003 to Libya in 2011. It did the same from Syria’s chemical facilities to Iran-backed militias in 2024. The Security Council might have constrained its military ambitions. Each unauthorized strike doesn’t just violate international law. It sets a precedent that encourages other powers to act unilaterally. This creates a world where might makes right.

The legal framework is crystal clear. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” United Nations and also Just Security. It does so except in cases of immediate self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Al Jazeera +3 This isn’t some arcane legal technicality—it’s the foundational principle that prevents international anarchy.

Yet America’s approach to Iran follows the same destructive playbook. The February 2024 US airstrikes against Iranian-backed groups in Iraq and Syria were triggered by attacks on US forces. However, they occurred without any UN consultation or authorization. XinhuanetWikipedia The strikes used 125 precision-guided missiles against 85 targets. They were spread across seven facilities. These strikes killed dozens. This happened while sidestepping international legal processes. WikipediaCfr

Pakistan’s principled stand against lawlessness

Pakistan’s response to these escalating tensions reflects a nation’s perspective that understands regional realities. It also considers international law obligations. The Israeli strikes targeted Iranian facilities. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry condemned these actions as “blatant provocations.” They said these actions violate “all rules of civilized behavior.” They also breach interstate relations, international law, and international humanitarian law. Al Jazeera

This wasn’t mere diplomatic rhetoric. As Foreign Office Spokesman Shafqat Ali Khan emphasized, “The international community and the United Nations bear responsibility to uphold international law. They must stop this aggression immediately. The aggressor should be held accountable.” Al Jazeera Pakistan’s position recognizes that attacks on nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards represent particularly dangerous violations of international law. Dawn

More significantly, Pakistan has consistently opposed unilateral military actions regardless of who conducts them. During the 2020 US assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Pakistan explicitly stated it “doesn’t endorse any unilateral action.” Reuters This principled stance reflects our understanding. International law must apply equally to all nations. If it does not, it becomes meaningless for everyone.

How UN credibility dies by a thousand cuts

Every unauthorized military intervention chips away at UN authority. This creates a vicious cycle. The organization becomes increasingly irrelevant to major powers. The Libya intervention in 2011 perfectly illustrates this destructive dynamic. NATO began with UN authorization to protect civilians. However, it quickly exceeded its mandate to pursue regime change. This led Russia’s Foreign Minister to declare that this experience made Russia “never allow the Security Council to authorize anything similar.” The ConversationJust Security

The result? When Syria’s chemical weapons crisis erupted, Russia systematically blocked UN resolutions, citing Libya’s precedent. The Security Council became paralyzed, undermining collective security for everyone. The Conversation As international law experts note, every bypassing of UN authorization increases the acceptability of future violations. This process creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of institutional decay.

The International Court of Justice’s landmark ruling in Nicaragua v. United States provides the legal foundation for understanding these violations. The Court found America “in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State” Wikipedia. It emphasized that military actions without UN authorization violate both treaty law and customary international law. Worldmediation

The nuclear dimension makes everything worse

Iran’s nuclear program adds a particularly dangerous element to this crisis of international law. ReutersAtlantic Council Iran currently possesses approximately 182 kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity. This amount is enough material for seven to ten nuclear weapons if further processed. ParliamentReuters The Institute for Science and International Security estimates Iran could produce weapons-grade uranium in “one week or less” if it chooses to do so. NpolicySecuritycouncilreport

But here’s the crucial point: military strikes without UN authorization make nuclear proliferation more likely, not less. Arms Control Association experts warn that unilateral military action could push Iran toward weaponization as a deterrent against future attacks. Iran’s threats to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if further pressured demonstrate how international law violations breed more violations. Atlantic Council

The IAEA’s June 2025 finding that Iran is non-compliant with nuclear safeguards—the first such determination in 20 years—occurred alongside unprecedented restrictions on international monitoring. Wikipedia +2 Since 2021, Iran has suspended enhanced monitoring measures, limiting IAEA access to key facilities. Parliament Military escalation has only worsened this crisis of oversight.

Regional implications that threaten Pakistan

For Pakistan and other South Asian nations, the collapse of international law creates security dilemmas that extend far beyond the Middle East. When great powers act unilaterally, smaller states must choose between bandwagoning with the powerful or relying on increasingly ineffective international institutions.

Pakistan faces particular challenges given our significant Shia minority population and complex relationships with both Iran and the United States. During recent escalations, Pakistan closed five border crossings with Iran and evacuated over 500 nationals, demonstrating how regional conflicts create immediate security concerns. Al Jazeera The potential for sectarian spillover effects makes Middle Eastern stability a direct Pakistani interest.

India’s careful balancing act between Iran and Israel illustrates the broader regional dynamics. India’s decision to distance itself from Shanghai Cooperation Organisation condemnations of Israeli strikes on Iran signals how great power competition forces regional states into impossible choices. Al Jazeera When international law becomes optional for major powers, middle powers like India and Pakistan must navigate increasingly treacherous diplomatic waters.

The historical pattern reveals systematic erosion

America’s approach to Iran fits within a broader pattern of international law violations that has accelerated since the Cold War’s end. Iraq 2003 remains the most egregious example—a war that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan explicitly declared violated international law. The Dutch government’s independent commission concluded the invasion had “no basis” in international law, while senior UK legal advisers resigned in protest. Taylor & FrancisWikipedia

Kosovo 1999 established the dangerous precedent of NATO acting without UN authorization, justified on humanitarian grounds but lacking legal foundation. The Conversation Syria’s chemical weapons facilities faced repeated strikes in 2017 and 2018 despite near-universal condemnation from international law experts. EJIL: Talk!Unimelb Each intervention makes the next one easier to justify and harder to prevent.

The cumulative effect is institutional decay that threatens the foundation of international order. Brookings Institution analysis documents how repeated bypassing of UN authorization has created “progressive marginalization of UN” authority. The Conversation When the world’s most powerful democracy routinely ignores international law, it provides cover for authoritarian regimes to do the same. Foreign Policy

Why this matters for Pakistan’s future

Pakistan’s commitment to international law isn’t merely idealistic—it’s existential. As a nation that achieved independence through partition and has faced repeated external pressures, Pakistan understands that international law provides crucial protection for smaller states. When great powers can act unilaterally with impunity, countries like Pakistan become vulnerable to coercion and intervention.

The erosion of UN authority affects Pakistan’s core interests in multiple ways. Kashmir, our most significant territorial dispute, depends on UN resolutions for its legal foundation. Afghanistan’s stability, crucial for Pakistan’s security, requires multilateral cooperation that becomes impossible when major powers pursue unilateral solutions. Nuclear proliferation in our immediate neighborhood threatens regional security in ways that only collective action can address.

Perhaps most importantly, the collapse of international law creates a world where nuclear weapons become the ultimate guarantor of sovereignty. If Iran concludes that only nuclear deterrence can prevent military attack, other regional powers may reach similar conclusions. Atlantic Council Pakistan already faces this reality, but a world where nuclear proliferation accelerates due to international law’s collapse serves no one’s interests.

The path forward requires collective action

The crisis of international law isn’t irreversible, but it requires honest acknowledgment of how we reached this point. Military strikes without UN authorization don’t just violate legal technicalities—they undermine the fundamental principle that disputes between nations should be resolved through law rather than force. Uchicago

Pakistan’s position offers a model for how smaller states can defend international law while managing great power relationships. By consistently opposing unilateral military actions regardless of who conducts them, Pakistan demonstrates that principled foreign policy remains possible even under pressure. Reuters Our diplomatic efforts to mediate between Iran and the United States show how middle powers can contribute to de-escalation when major powers prefer confrontation. SUCH TV

The international community must recognize that every compromise with international law violations makes future violations more likely. Foreign Policy Libya’s precedent enabled Syria’s paralysis. Iraq’s precedent enabled later interventions. Iran’s crisis will establish precedents for future nuclear proliferation scenarios. Scielo

Rebuilding respect for international law requires more than diplomatic protests—it demands concrete consequences for violations and genuine reform of international institutions. The UN Security Council’s paralysis due to great power competition necessitates creative approaches that can restore multilateral effectiveness while maintaining legal principles. Brookings

For Pakistan and other nations that still believe in the promise of international law, the stakes couldn’t be clearer. We can either accept a world where might makes right, or we can demand that even the most powerful nations remain bound by the laws they helped create. The future of international order—and our own security—depends on making the right choice.

The author writes on international relations and security policy from Islamabad. The views expressed are personal.

“The Forgotten Clause in the Nikahnama”

Why do most brides in Pakistan never read their marriage contract?

Here’s what I noticed.

At almost every Pakistani wedding I’ve attended, there’s this moment during the nikah ceremony. The bride’s side falls strangely silent during this moment. A male relative signs the form. A qazi recites Arabic verses. The bride, veiled behind a curtain or in another room, is asked: “Qubool hai?”

Three times. That’s all.
No one hands her the actual document.
No one asks if she wants to insert any clauses.
No one explains that she has the right to do so.

Even women with college degrees often surrender at this sacred intersection. Those with professional titles, Instagram accounts, and agency in other parts of their lives also surrender. We’ve been raised to see modesty as silence. We see obedience as virtue.

This Isn’t a Cultural Oversight. It’s a Systemic Erasure.

Under Pakistani law—and Islamic law—the nikahnama is not just ceremonial. It’s a legal contract.

And here’s the shocking part:

  • Clause 17 allows women to restrict polygamy.
  • Clause 18 grants them the right to divorce (called Talaq-e-Tafweez).
  • Clause 21 pertains to maintenance.
  • Clause 22 addresses dowry and gifts.
  • Clause 25 lets women demand conditions—such as education, work, or even relocation terms.

But these are often crossed out before the form even reaches the bride.
Sometimes, the qazis themselves strike through them “to keep things simple.”
Sometimes, families tell daughters: “What kind of girl makes conditions before even entering the home?”

Translation: How dare you use your rights?

Even Educated Families Miss the Point

A weird thing happened at a wedding in Karachi last year. The bride, a lawyer, asked to read the full nikahnama. The qazi hesitated. The mother-in-law got upset. The groom said, “Don’t make a scene, it’s just tradition.”

You ever wonder why the moment a woman asserts her rights—especially religious rights—it’s called rebellion?

Here’s the contradiction no one wants to name:
We praise the Prophet’s marriages. We quote Khadijah as a symbol of strength.
Yet our weddings muzzle women.

Islam gave women contractual rights in the 7th century. Pakistan often strips them in the 21st.

But There’s a Quiet Rebellion Brewing

I’ve met young women who carry a printed copy of the nikahnama to their wedding.
Women who walk into marriage negotiations with calm dignity and say:
“I will sign—but I will also write.”
“I accept—but I expect.”

They’re not anti-marriage. They’re anti-erasure.

Even some qazis are shifting. Some feminist lawyers are training brides-to-be. Even a few grooms now say, “Let’s do this right.”

It’s not a revolution. Not yet. But it’s a ripple.

So What If We Taught Every Daughter This One Thing?

That Islam gave her a pen.
That she’s allowed to write on the lines—and between them.
That a veil is not silence. And a contract is not a commandment.

Maybe then the nikahnama will stop being a lost page in her own story.
And start becoming her first word.