Frankenstein

Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophilic monster. But he has become something more: a Frankenstein created by Trump-supporting MAGA conspiracists. And now that they have power, the creature they built has come back to haunt them.

This is a Gothic tale of a political movement forged on social media conspiracy. It was politically useful to stoke fear, outrage, and anger when they were on the outside. But now that they hold power — and “the file is on my desk,” as AG Pam Bondi so memorably declared on Fox — they’re cornered. Either they produce the goods, or they have to figure out how to destroy the monster before it destroys them.

One tried-and-true tactic: distraction. Launch a new, juicy fake scandal to draw attention away — say, an investigation of former CIA Directors John Brennan and James Comey for the “Russia, Russia, Russia” thing. But it won’t work. First, it’s old news. No one remembers or cares about Brennan and Comey anymore. Second, the Russia investigation already happened — multiple reports, charges laid, convictions obtained. It’s been done to death.

Tactic number two: bury it. This is proving to be a debacle.

The official FBI two-page memo dismissing the Epstein case raises more questions than it answers, giving it the unmistakable stench of a cover-up. One reason is obvious: Epstein and Trump were Palm Beach party besties in the mid-’90s, during the very period when Epstein was most prolifically raping 14-year-old girls. Common sense says the likelihood of evidence linking Trump is pretty high.

“The client list,” which the memo claims does not exist, was always just shorthand for the well-connected, high-powered ‘johns’ to whom Epstein trafficked girls. The overwhelming evidence is that he did exactly that — and we know one of them was Prince Andrew, despite his well-publicized denial. Whether a literal list exists is irrelevant. What does exist, according to the memo, is “a large volume of images of Epstein, images and videos of victims who are either minors or appear to be minors, and over ten thousand downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography.” The memo also claims Epstein had over a thousand victims. Yet no further investigation is warranted? It makes absolutely no sense.

Then there’s Epstein’s jailhouse suicide on August 10th. The memo repeats the official autopsy findings, and to support them, approximately 11 hours of poor-quality surveillance footage has been released — from a camera on an upper floor, trained on a lower-floor common area leading to a stairwell (mostly out of view) that goes up to Epstein’s cell. It settles nothing. It only adds to suspicion. The fact that a minute is missing from the video is almost incidental.**

There are so many anomalies and lapses surrounding the most high-profile, loathed, and feared (by the powerful) inmate in America at the time:

- There hadn’t been a suicide at the facility in 14 years — until Epstein’s.

- Epstein had already attempted suicide on July 23rd. At the time, he had a cellmate: multiple-murder and drug-conspiracy suspect Nicholas Tartaglione. Tartaglione was cleared of any involvement, no details given, and Epstein was removed from suicide watch after only six days.

- His new cellmate was removed the day before his death, on August 9th.

- The evening he died, Epstein met with his lawyers, who described him as “upbeat.”

- Epstein’s last phone call was unmonitored, against protocol, and was originally reported as made to his mother. In fact it was later determined to be made to a number in Belarus.

- No suicide letter was left — only a note complaining about large bugs on his body, burnt food, and a guard who locked him naked in a shower cell for an hour.

- The initial report said Epstein was returned to his cell at 7:49 PM. The video (and the FBI memo) shows he was actually led upstairs at 10:30 PM.

- After 10:30 PM, the guards didn’t do their scheduled rounds. Instead, they falsified logs. They claimed to be asleep, but the video shows otherwise.

- The camera near Epstein’s cell wasn’t recording.

- In violation of protocol, Epstein’s body was removed before crime-scene photos could be taken.

- The autopsy raised questions: the neck wounds, whether a bedsheet could cause such injuries, and whether a man of Epstein’s height and weight (1.8 m, 185 lbs) could have hanged himself from the top bunk. There was blood on his neck, but seemingly none on the sheet. Post-mortem photos show bottles and items still standing upright on the bunk.

If you’ve read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, you know the monster is chased all the way to the North Pole by its creator, who dies trying to catch him. Similarly, this Epstein-Frankenstein will not die in the cold. It will survive in the server farms of social media. Those who gave it life will spend their remaining credibility trying to silence it — or be devoured by what they cannot deny.

** Since posting this I have watched a fascinating YouTube deep dive into the facts surrounding the missing minute as reported in the initial investigation which suggests that it may not be as incidental as first thought and could indicate something nefarious occurring. 

The Nervous Breakdown President

Tariffs are on. Tariffs are off. Then on again. Ten percent. Twenty-five. Forty. Two hundred. Back to fifty.

Vladimir Putin is a nice guy. Then he’s not. Bibi Netanyahu? Not a nice guy—until suddenly he is.

We’re withholding arms from Ukraine. No, wait—we’re sending them.

What we’re witnessing is not policy. It’s not strategy. It’s not even chaos in the traditional political sense.

It's a public nervous breakdown of the most powerful individual on the planet.

I’m not a psychologist. But to my untrained eye, trump doesn’t belong in the White House—he belongs in a hospital ward.

When someone is in the midst of a nervous breakdown, they’re in severe mental distress. The stress can cause irrational thinking, paranoia, mood swings, verbal incoherence, sleep disruption, difficulty with basic decision-making, and disconnection from reality. It often looks like someone struggling to function in daily life, stumbling through tasks they once handled with ease.

Sound familiar?

And here’s the thing: there’s a known set of guidelines for how to treat someone going through a breakdown :

1. Create a calm, quiet environment. Remove stressors, noise, and triggers.

2. Keep the person comfortable and secure.

3. Stay calm yourself. Your composure can help stabilize them.

4. Offer non-judgmental listening. Avoid confrontation.

5. Validate their feelings. Offer support, not challenge.

6. Avoid criticism or shaming. That only escalates the situation.

Now think about how successful foreign leaders and domestic allies have handled trump in public settings. They’re not conducting diplomacy. They’re managing a psychological crisis.

Bibi’s figured it out. So has Zelensky. Macron too. Even Keir Starmer and Mexico’s Sheinbaum seem to get it. These leaders aren’t negotiating with a peer. They’re keeping the environment "safe" for a volatile man with immense power.

His advisors and enablers are caregivers.

And the media? They’re not just failing to call this out—they’re participating in the performance. They play a part, obsessing over his outbursts, his latest contradictions, his every move. They shouldn't be broadcasting his daily inane, babbling media scrums. But when they do, they should be followed by panels of psychiatrists and mental health professionals, not political pundits. 

This isn’t policy inconsistency. This isn’t political posturing. This is instability playing out on a global stage, and too many institutions are complicit in pretending it’s entertainment.

He's not getting help. He’s surrounded by people whose jobs and ambitions depend on him staying upright. One prediction I can make with confidence is that it’s going to get worse. The only thing I can't say is how bad the consequences will be.

Gardening

I read at least one poem

every day.

It comes to me from the internet

by email.

I open my email and say to myself,

what kind of cornucopia is this?

That a poem should just appear

to insignificant me

every single day?

How wonderful is this world?

Poetry sprouts in my inbox

like a garden,

digital seeds

blooming 

with expressions of love,

and hope 

expressions of need,

and wonder,

beauty,

and paradox;

I will be the gardener,

weed

to make space

for growth.

Serge Fiori

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG

Je voudrais chanter en français,

Comme Serge Fiori et Michel Normandeau.

Comme les nuages dans un ciel blanc et gros,

Comme la pluie qui remplit un bateau.

Que sais-je ? Qui suis-je ?

Dans mon pays, avec ma famille.

Avec mes amis, dans cet ennui

En chantant une chanson de Serge Fiori.

Je ne sais pas composer harmonie,

Ni les concepts d'ontologie,

De quoi il s'agit, De quoi ça signifie,

Peut-être que c'est juste de la folie.

Que sais-je ? Qui suis-je ?

Dans mon pays, avec ma famille.

Avec mes amis, dans cet ennui,

En chantant une chanson de Serge Fiori.

Je me pose des questions, 

Sans réponse et sans du sens,

J'aurais préféré créer une danse.

Ma copine appelait la police,

Après avoir fait sa valise,

Elle s'est libérée de toutes mes crises.

Que sais-je ? Qui suis-je ?

Dans mon pays, avec ma famille.

Avec mes amis, dans cet ennui,

En chantant une chanson de Serge Fiori.

The World Is Perfect

CLICK HERE TO HEAR AUTHOR READ

The world is perfect -

the sky is vast and biblical

as the Sistine ceiling.

Down here among the mortals

water laps at the side 

of our aluminum hull 

like a loyal spaniel.

Waves lift us,

gently lower us,

in rhythm

to the moon's clock.

The magnificent fireball sun 

extinguishes salmon pink

behind shoreline trees,

cottage lights blink on

signalling that fish 

will soon be biting: Quiet 

anticipation.

A carefully chosen lure 

wobbles and jerks

mimicking prey, catching

the day's last rays  

in weedy depths,

flash of chrome

to trick pike or bass 

into suddenly attacking -

turn predator into prey.

Who will be lucky

who not

                STRIKE!

               (like a missile)

      our cradle skiff 

jolts, rocks

        with violence

and surprise.

Senses are returned quickly  

by the work at hand,

shriek of whizzing reel,

command of bowing rod,

tug and splash

of struggle -

the primal desire 

to be free.

In a few minutes

the dorsal fin 

full of spikes surfaces,

sleek elongated body

about the length of an arm,

green with yellow spots,

tail flapping like a small flag -

toothy prehistoric mouth

hooked clean 

between lip and snout;

tired now,

too tired

to fight 

anymore.

The Work I Do

The work I do

is write poems.

I call it work

because it takes

time,

concentration,

and effort.

It’s not work

in the sense

of money—

which is okay,

because

if I got money

to write poems

it would ruin it.

CANADA DAY

HAPPY CANADA DAY!

CELEBRATE 

SOMETHING TO ADD TO YOUR PLAYLIST

The Television President - 12-Day War Episode

Beginning in 1960, with the pivotal first-ever televised presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, it became clear that media would play an enormously important role in American politics. From that point onward, elections—and the presidency itself—were shaped by television’s influence. But we never truly imagined how far that might go until the advent of social media. We couldn’t foresee how broadcast media—by which I mean television and social media combined—would not just influence or depict, but actually create a presidency. And I mean a real one, not a fictional TV series.

Trump has completely obliterated (his favourite new word) the boundary between broadcast media and the presidency. Traditional political journalists, observers, and commentators have been left utterly befuddled. The problem is that they’re still trying to view his presidency through the old lens, applying to him the standards of policy and communication that no longer apply. They talk about him as if he were just a more extreme version of a normal president. They say he "defies convention" and "busts norms." But he doesn’t merely defy convention or break norms—he’s operating from a completely different script.

Trump's conception of the presidency has more in common with The West Wing or Survivor than it does with governance. He is a character playing a role in a fictional story. The elements of film production are his guiding principles—scene setting, casting, drama, set design, lighting, hair, and makeup. He thinks in terms of storylines and spectacle, not national interest, policy, or strategy.

Is fact-checking something we do when watching our favorite miniseries? Of course not. Facts don’t matter to trump or his crew—not because they’re lying in the traditional sense (they are of course), but because they’re working in a different genre. He’s not misleading reporters in his daily scrums—he’s delivering lines written to serve a narrative and hold the attention of his audience. In this light, film and TV critics probably have a better grasp of his presidency than political scientists. It’s why media critic Michael Wolff, author of the 2015 book Television is the New Television, has arguably been one of the most astute chroniclers of the trump phenomenon.

Trump was created by media, in the media capital of New York City. He cut his teeth in the world of magazines and tabloids, then graduated to The Apprentice, where he honed the persona that would pave his way to the presidency. He was able to ride that persona to the White House because the electorate, in the age of social media, increasingly sees itself as characters in a fictional world. His followers at his rallies are like extras taking direction. Or a game show host and the studio audience. That’s the essence of trump's bond with his followers. It feels cultish because it functions like the bond between a performer and his supporting act. Trump’s pact with his most fervent supporters is like Willy Wonka’s with the holders of the Golden Ticket: Enter my world of fantasy and imagination, and I will provide you with joy, laughter, and surprise—all you have to do is believe.

All of this was on full display in the recent episode of this new season of The Trump Presidency Show—the “12-Day War” episode. Stealth bombers dropping massive bunker-buster munitions in the middle of the night made for the highest drama. According to Secretary of Defense Hegseth—a former Fox News personality—“the President directed” (yes, he actually used that tv-speak) “the most complicated and secretive military operation in U.S. history.” Apparently, the Secretary of Defense never heard of D-Day. His press conference had all the elements of a well-constructed scene: a bit-player trying to save his role by picking a fight with journalists (who dutifully played their part) after the previous episode—the “Parade Episode”—fell flat. It’s worth noting that trump pulls much of his supporting cast from Fox, at last count 23 members of his administration have worked as on-air personalities, commentators, or presenters.

If there’s one thing I can predict with confidence, it’s this: like all TV shows, this one will eventually jump the shark. I just hope not too many people get hurt in real life when it does.

It's All Because of Obama

We know something today that we didn’t know just a few months ago: Iran’s bark is far worse than its bite. After years of speculation about its military might, we now have something close to a real-world test—and the results are in. Thanks to recent U.S. and Israeli military operations, Iran stands as a diminished force, exposed for what it truly is: a regime whose power lies not in its capacity to strike, but in its ability to project the illusion of strength.

But how much farther ahead are we, really?

Iran’s fearsome reputation has long been a subject of debate. The real issue was never whether it could strike, but whether anyone was willing to test the proposition. That test has now taken place. And what we’ve confirmed is something analysts have long suspected: Iran’s post-1980s war strategy has centered on two things—cultivating a network of proxy militias and developing a nuclear program that serves primarily as a bargaining chip.

The proxy strategy allowed Tehran to skirt international accountability while creating chaos abroad. The nuclear program gave the regime a shield—an insurance policy against regime change, and a powerful tool for international leverage. But despite all the breathless warnings over the years, there’s little evidence that Iran ever intended to actually fully develop much less use a nuclear weapon, against Israel or anyone else. If it had been hell-bent on doing so, it would never have agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015.

What the JCPOA revealed—though many missed it—was that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were negotiable. It was a revelation that should have reframed our understanding of Iran as a strategic, calculating actor rather than an irrational one. For all the deal’s flaws, it functioned as proof of concept: nuclear weapons aren’t primarily military tools anymore—they’re political instruments. And Iran was willing to trade that instrument for sanctions relief.

That brings us to the pivot point of the era we’re living through: Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA in May 2018.

Let’s be honest—trump didn’t pull out of the deal because it was ineffective. He withdrew because Barack Obama had signed it. Trump committed himself early on to dismantling Obama’s legacy piece by piece—health care, climate agreements, and yes, foreign policy. The JCPOA was low-hanging fruit, and he took it down with gusto.

He was helped along by Bibi Netanyahu, a long-time opponent of the deal, and by a cadre of politically influential donors who had been lobbying against it for years. But trump needed very little convincing. In his world, if Obama built it, Trump had to bulldoze it.

The irony is rich. Today, trump is quietly hoping that Iran will return to negotiations—the very path the JCPOA made possible and that his administration shattered. Meanwhile, Netanyahu is dreading exactly that outcome, knowing any revived diplomacy could re-legitimize a deal he worked so hard to kill.

Trump now finds himself trapped by his own rhetoric. Any new agreement he might broker will inevitably be compared to the one he discarded. And he knows it. That’s likely why, when announcing that U.S. representatives would be meeting with Iranian officials next week, he quickly added, “We might not need a nuclear agreement.” It’s a preemptive hedge. Because negotiating a deal over something you claimed to have "obliterated" doesn’t quite add up.

Of course, it wouldn’t be trump without a twist of narcissism. His obsession with winning a Nobel Peace Prize—because Obama got one, of course—has become a guiding light for his foreign policy instincts. He floated the idea of winning it for brokering peace between India and Pakistan. Then between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. Now, perhaps, he sees Israel and Iran as his long shot to glory.

But the real prize may have been within reach years ago—when Obama, along with a coalition of world powers, struck a deal that curbed Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot. It wasn’t perfect. But it was diplomacy. And it worked—until it didn’t, because it bore the wrong name.

And so here we are, again, circling back to where we started. Iran, diminished and exposed. Trump, desperate and entangled. And Obama, still living rent-free in the mind of a man who would undo the world just to outshine him.

Marketing Meets Reality

Eventually, the truth is known. Sometimes it takes a very long time. Sometimes not so long. In the current round of the Israel–Iran conflict, the truth about the actual damage will be known relatively soon. But the shaping of the narrative—regardless of the facts—began within hours of the U.S. attack. There was no time to waste. Victory was claimed. Officials insisted that the target was "completely, totally obliterated," a phrase repeated by various members of the administration so it would be echoed by the media—and many outlets happily obliged.

The only problem is that “obliterated” is technically a meaningless term when it comes to the damage assessment of a military operation. It is transparently spin. Military officials use three words with specific operational meaning: a target is considered destroyed when it is eliminated entirely; defeated when it is rendered unusable for the time being; or delayed when it is temporarily incapacitated but repairable.

We will soon know the true status of Iran’s nuclear program and, in particular, the three targets hit by the U.S. B-2s. An initial Pentagon assessment—leaked and largely corroborated by Israeli intelligence—indicates that Fordow, Iran’s main nuclear development site, was nowhere near “destroyed.” It wasn’t even “defeated.” The preliminary consensus appears to be that it was "delayed"—for a period of months to a year.

If this is confirmed, it would be a worst-case scenario. Not only has Iran’s nuclear program survived, but Iran now finds itself in an extremely vulnerable position—cornered, so to speak—which is likely to embolden hardliners within the regime. Rather than discouraging nuclear development, this attack may add urgency to their pursuit of a weapon. Iran may now be more motivated to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and use any negotiations as little more than a smokescreen.

I suspect the Iranians either knew the American strike had largely failed or, at the very least, had moved their enriched uranium beforehand. Their “retaliation” appeared deliberately symbolic: a carefully calibrated response with advanced warning to ensure minimal damage. It was a savvy strategic maneuver—and the weak-willed, unprincipled, and clueless trump took the bait. He publicly thanked Iran for the warning and rushed to declare a ceasefire, possibly without even consulting the principal combatants. It seemed obvious—at least to me—that he was being played, again. His public outburst the next morning, criticizing Israel for threatening the ceasefire he had unilaterally imposed, sealed the deal. The mullahs are smiling.

How did we go from Netanyahu dancing a jig at U.S. involvement over the weekend to the mullahs of Iran throwing a party at the announcement of a ceasefire two days later? Since when did following international conflicts give analysts a case of whiplash? The answer is clear: since an impetuous man-child took over the White House.

Netanyahu maneuvered trump into attacking Iran.

Iran maneuvered trump into getting Israel to stop attacking before the job was complete.

On the chessboard of international affairs, there are players and there are pieces. In this game, Netanyahu and Khamenei are the players, and trump is a piece—an important and powerful one, like a Queen that can move in all directions—but a piece nonetheless. The same can be said about the conflict in Ukraine. The players are Putin and Zelensky, and they are maneuvering trump around the board as well.

Now that trump has declared victory, branding the conflict the “12-Day War” (a reference to Israel’s Six-Day War), what will he do when the official damage assessments say otherwise? Admit he was mistaken—as if he’s ever done that—and attack again? He’s painted the U.S. into a corner once more. If the administration continues to insist that the targets were “obliterated,” we may be looking at a case where the cover-up is worse than the blunder itself.

I have a feeling Iran will move to encourage trump to get 'negotiations' back underway. 

I have a feeling Netanyahu won't let that process play out without making some moves of his own, especially as attention now turns back to Gaza, which is still going very badly.

Serge Fiori

It seems to be a month for the passing of our rock and roll heroes. Brian Wilson, Sly Stone, and this week Mick Ralphs the great British guitarist who gained fame with Mott The Hoople and later Bad Company. Millions of teenage basement bands, including my first band, can thank Mick Ralphs for teaching us how to rock on the three chorder Can’t Get Enough. That was the first rock song I ever learned to play, but it took 45 years for me to learn - from an interview with Ralphs I recently watched - that we were playing it wrong. Turns out it was originally played and recorded in an open C tuning, not standard tuning. No wonder it never sounded quite right when we played it. 

But I wanted to pay tribute to another pioneer of rock music with this post. Someone who you probably don’t know, but who was, for anyone growing up in Quebec in the 1970s, absolutely pivotal: Montrealer Serge Fiori, who also passed away this week, fittingly in the early morning hours of La Fête Nationale du Québec (formerly called Saint-Jean Baptiste Day). 

One of the few albums that I have never stopped listening to into my middle age, is the eponymous first album by the Quebec band Harmonium. Fiori was a founder, songwriter, guitarist and lead singer of the band. 

Thanks to new Canadian Content regulations on radio, and the album rock orientation of FM stations, the burgeoning Canadian and Quebec music industries enjoyed a heyday in the 1970s. Along with progressive British rock groups like Supertramp, Genesis, Pink Floyd and Yes, who were just beginning to break into the North American market by way of Quebec FM radio, we also had hugely popular local artists like Michel Pagliaro, Robert Charlebois, Beau Dommage and my favourite Harmonium. I would describe the music of Harmonium as progressive folk, along the lines of the Moody Blues (who were also extremely popular in Quebec). The music had a distinct traditional Quebecois flavour, with lush twelve-string guitars, tempo-changes, and interesting chord voicings. Songs from the first Harmonium album were ubiquitous on the airwaves, especially the single Pour Un Instant, with the deeply resonant opening lines: 

Pour un instant, j'ai oublié mon nom,

Ça m'a permis enfin d'écrire cette chanson.

Pour un instant, j'ai retourné mon miroir,

Ça m'a permis enfin de mieux me voir. 

(translation) 

For a moment, I forgot my name,

It finally allowed me to write this song.

For a moment, I returned my mirror,

It finally allowed me to see myself better.

The explosion of Quebec popular music came at a time when political separatism was coming into the mainstream as well. There was a lot of pressure for Quebec artists to publicly embrace the politics, to be voices of the movement, and many (maybe even most) did. Serge Fiori was no different. The lyrics of Pour un Instant were not only interpreted as an individual's experience of momentarily losing oneself in art and experiencing a sense of spiritual universal transcendence and renewal. It was also seen as an expression of rejecting the identity you have been given (by the powerful, the colonial), and finding a new self, in a nationalist sense. 

Later in the song:    

Des inconnus vivent en roi chez moi,

Moi qui avait accepté leurs lois.

J'ai perdu mon temps à gagner du temps,

J'ai besoin de me trouver une histoire à me conter.

(translation)

Strangers live like kings in my house,

I who had accepted their laws.

I wasted my time stalling,

I need to find a story to tell myself.

As a teenager, anglo-Quebeckers like me who loved the music didn't pay much attention to the political subtext of the lyrics. It's one of those ironies of growing up in Quebec during that tumultuous period, that the very forces that threatened us politically, inspired a cultural renaissance of the richest, most meaningful art and music that we still carry in our hearts. 

 

Ceasefire?

So there’s a ceasefire? Yes? No? Maybe?

I know why Trump agreed to it. The ‘war’ was unpopular and risked getting out of hand. And oh yeah there’s the Nobel Peace Prize he still has his eye on.

If they did, I know why Iran agreed to it. They are running out of missiles and more importantly launchers. They don't do ‘war’ well. They are much more adept at terrorism and proxy war, and also using their military to repress their own population. I suspect they still have some nuclear weapons development facilities intact and fissile material stashed away. You have to wonder what the emergency meeting between Iranian officials and Putin was all about, but we can imagine.

If they did, I know why Israel agreed to it. They were running out of defence system rockets. And probably did as much as they could do to degrade Iranian capabilities.

And if you think this is over, keep thinking. 

And here’s a question to ponder. If indeed Iran - while severely weakened, and at risk of being truly obliterated by escalating the war with US - took steps to preserve itself diplomatically, does it throw cold water on Netanyahu’s forever claim that the Islamic regime is apocalyptic to the point of suicidal? That was the crux of his argument. If Iran got a nuclear weapon they would certainly use it against Israel even if it meant knowing Israel would respond with their own bomb. Mutually assured destruction was not a deterrent to the crazy mullahs. Seems like they care about survival after all. 

Damage Assessment

There’s not a lot we can be certain of these days—except that Benjamin Netanyahu had a very good weekend. And that Iran will retaliate for the American attack.

I would have said Israelis are probably pleased with what the U.S. did—except they’re too busy sprinting to bomb shelters every few hours.

The one thing we can say with certainty is that the situation is far less certain than it was just a few days ago. Wars, by their nature, are unpredictable and have an escalatory momentum. As the old adage goes: easy to start, hard to stop. That’s why diplomacy is always preferable. It offers something war never can: predictability. As long as opposing sides are engaged in negotiations, the process is structured and the outcomes measurable.

Am I glad that Israel and the U.S. have degraded Iran’s capacity to threaten the region? Of course. It’s like the high you get from your favourite gelato. But let’s not hang up the “Mission Accomplished” banner just yet. For one, there are still hostages held by Hamas in Gaza—easy to forget them when the news cycle moves this fast. And I believe the world is far more dangerous today than it was last week.

As I’ve argued before: until there’s a change in the terrorist regime in Iran, any achievement from an air campaign will be short-lived.

And then there’s trump.

Let’s stop pretending he gave any serious thought to this. He didn’t. He’s not capable of strategic planning. His approach can be summed up in one phrase: “I’ll show them I’m not a TACO” (Trump Always Chickens Out—for those who haven’t been following the shorthand). His personal ties to Bibi Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, and the other gift-giving Gulf royals likely played a role. That’s about all you need to know.

So let’s look at the wider implications of trump’s decision:

1. The collapse of U.S. diplomatic credibility.

Secretary of State Rubio said the U.S. had nothing to do with Israel’s attack—a lie. A 6th round of negotiations with Iran was supposedly on the calendar—another lie. After the U.S. strike, Secretary of Defense Hegseth insisted this wasn’t about regime change—yet trump tweeted about wanting Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” then hinted at regime change. The result? Diplomatic credibility in ruins. Whatever legitimacy this administration had—if any—it has squandered in just six months.

2. The nuclear danger has grown.

We don’t know, and likely never will, how damaged Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities truly are without inspectors on the ground. That’s not going to happen anytime soon. The Iranians had over a week’s notice to hide or move fissile material, especially from Fordow. If they now withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and expel IAEA inspectors—as seems likely—there will be no verifiable oversight left. Their path forward is obvious: race for a nuclear deterrent. The diplomacy that restrained that ambition is now dead.

3. International law is in shambles.

All the pearl-clutching over whether these attacks were “legal” is sad to watch. It’s not that legality doesn’t matter—it’s that it’s now a joke. Watching the Iranian representative at the UN Security Council cite the Charter’s sovereignty clauses, you could almost forget Iran is itself a serial violator of those very norms. It was stomach-turning theater. The UN has failed—again—and its prestige has taken another serious blow. Iran should have been expelled from the UN as a state sponsor of terrorism long ago.

4. Are we closer to regime change, or even regime modification, in Iran?

This is the only question that matters. And the answer is: no. In fact, we’re further away than ever. And if the regime survives this, it will emerge more determined to secure a nuclear deterrent—its only insurance policy against future attacks.

So enjoy your gelato while it lasts. Because the sugar rush won’t.

Bill of Goods Blues

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG

This bill of goods you're sellin,

Baby I keep buyin.

The story that you're tellin, 

Can't stop myself from tryin.

The way that you flirt, 

Take my money, take my shirt.

The house, the air, the dirt,

Take it all until it hurts.

You got the body baby,

That's drivin me crazy. 

The way you make it move, 

Oh yeah the way you make it groove.

This bill of goods you're sellin,

Baby I keep buyin.

The story that you're tellin, 

Can't stop myself from tryin.

You’ve been beatin me down,

Make me feel like a clown.

Like a boat run aground,

A swimmer too ‘fraid to drown. 

Window shoppin at your store,

I keep pacing the floor. 

I’m lookin for more and more,  

But the lock is on your door.

This bill of goods you're sellin,

Baby I keep buyin.

The story that you're tellin, 

Can't stop myself from cryin.

The US at War with Iran

The US has bombed three nuclear sites in Iran. 

I must say, I am both surprised and not surprised. Which is always the way with trump. I thought he might like the drama and world attention on him a bit longer. 

Also surprised that I really thought trump wanted the Nobel Peace Prize. I still do, except I didn’t imagine that in his warped mind he thought he might be able to get it by bombing Iran to the negotiating table. But I guess he’s that delusional.

Another thought: Goodbye any chance for regime change, which was ultimately the only chance for a lasting peace. Even Iranians who hate the regime will rally behind it. From this day forth, Iran will do everything in its power to rush to get a nuclear weapon. They need one to defend against the US.

Another thought: Iran will retaliate. I expect that the retaliation will take the immediate form of firing missiles at US military bases in the region, but also terrorism, since Iran has shown that terrorism is the only thing it is actually competent at. 

I expect trump and the US will rue this day.

Where We Are Headed

Israel has achieved air supremacy over western Iran, including the capital, Tehran. It has decapitated Iran’s military leadership and eliminated most of its top nuclear scientists. A significant portion of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—centrifuges, enrichment facilities, and uranium stockpiles—has been damaged or destroyed, along with much of its drone and ballistic missile manufacturing capabilities.

Estimates suggest the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon has been delayed by six to twelve months, though this remains uncertain. Israel has also reportedly destroyed around 40% of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers. Israeli officials claim their air campaign has met or exceeded all best-case objectives, and well ahead of schedule.

By any measure, the campaign has been a remarkable military success: Iran is on the back foot, and Israeli losses have been minimal.

But it’s important to keep this in perspective. We are still in the 'opening act' of this phase of the conflict. And what the campaign highlights, more than anything, are the inherent limitations of military success. While Israel may succeed in setting back Iran’s nuclear ambitions, completing the job likely requires direct U.S. involvement—which remains an open question.

Beyond that, no definitive conclusions can yet be drawn—only speculation about where things may go from here.

Here are some possible scenarios and their likelihood:

1. The U.S. joins the fight to finish off Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. The Iranian people seize the opportunity of regime weakness to rise up in a democratic revolution, overthrow (or kill) the Ayatollah, and install a pro-Western government.

Likelihood: 0.5% - This is the most optimistic and least likely scenario.

2. The U.S. joins the fight to finish off Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. To ensure its survival, the Iranian regime admits defeat and agrees to dismantle its nuclear program, pledges never to pursue nuclear weapons, and accepts strict international verification.

Likelihood: 5% - A face-saving capitulation is possible, but highly improbable.

3. The U.S. joins the fight to destroy Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. The regime collapses and chaos ensues. A more repressive, anti-Western military dictatorship replaces the theocracy. It refuses any 'humiliating' deal and declares indefinite war on the West, launching a sustained campaign of attacks and terrorism.

Likelihood: 15% - A dangerous, chaotic outcome that cannot be ruled out.

4. The U.S. joins the fight to finish off Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. The regime survives, remains defiant, and refuses any agreement. It expands the war to include U.S. targets in the region and beyond, and attacks oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, it races to rebuild its nuclear program as its only real security guarantee.

Likelihood: 35% - A highly plausible and dangerous trajectory.

5. The U.S. stays out. Israel continues degrading Iran’s nuclear program but cannot eliminate it entirely. Under the pressure of Israeli attacks and the threat of potential U.S. involvement, Iran negotiates—via European intermediaries—a deal that includes surrendering near-weapons-grade uranium and halting centrifuge operations, under a strict verification regime. In return, Iran receives sanctions relief and other incentives.

Likelihood: 65% - The most realistic scenario.

How We Got Here

Bibi Netanyahu aggressively campaigns for the Trump administration to leave the JCPOA, the multi-national agreement that halts Iran's nuclear program. 

In May 2018 Trump withdraws from the JCPOA, notwithstanding the fact that in July 2017 his own administration had announced that Iran was respecting the terms of the agreement.

Trump announces a 'maximum economic pressure' campaign against Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons.  

Notwithstanding US withdrawal from the agreement and economic sanctions, Iran says that it will continue to respect the terms of the JCPOA. 

In 2019, Trump takes the unprecedented step of labeling the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a “foreign terrorist organization.” 

In January 2020 Trump orders the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the architect of Iran's network of regional proxy forces.

In January 2020 Tehran responds to the killing of Soleimani by launching a barrage of missiles at US bases in Iraq causing dozens of brain concussion injuries but no deaths among US soldiers stationed there. Trump downplays the injuries publicly.

Trump fails to stop Kim Jong Un from obtaining nuclear weapons. Instead he cozies up to him, as well as to Vladimir Putin. 

Joe Biden takes office in January 2021.

Iran announces a February 2021 deadline, vowing that if oil and banking sanctions are not lifted, it will expel the U.N.’s nuclear inspectors from the country. The Biden administration takes a step with European partners to offer to begin talks with Iran for the first time in four years.

Talks with the Biden administration continue through 2022-23. There is a prisoner exchange between the United States and Iran, and Biden unfreezes $6 billion in Iranian oil revenues, resulting in a tentative, informal accord that sees Tehran pledge not to enrich uranium beyond its current level of 60 percent (which is virtually weapon's grade), and to better cooperate with UN nuclear inspectors. Also on the table is Iran stopping proxy terror groups from attacking US contractors in Iraq and Syria, stopping to provide Russia with ballistic missiles, and releasing three American-Iranians held in the Islamic Republic.  

Taking both Israel and Iran by surprise, Hamas terrorists from Gaza attack southern Israel on October 7, 2023. Hamas kills 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals and takes 251 hostages. 

Iran's main regional proxy force Hezbollah announces it is joining the fight on October 8th and fires a barrage of rockets into northern Israel from southern Lebanon. This is effectively the beginning of Israel's war with Iran. 

Israel is now in a position where it has to respond forcefully in order reestablish its deterrence capabilities, which had been left in shambles by the massive security failure of October 7th.

Israel begins military operation in Gaza on October 13th 2023. On the 27th a full scale invasion is launched.

On April 1st 2024 Israeli aircraft attack the Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing two Iranian generals, and seven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officers. Iran retaliates on the 13th by launching attacks against Israel with 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles and more than 120 ballistic missiles. The attack is successfully repelled by Israel and allies without significant damage.

In September 2024 Israel intensifies its operations with two waves of electronic device attacks targeting Hezbollah's communication systems and militants. 

In September 2024 Israel assassinates Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah and his successor Hashem Safieddine in Beirut.

On October 1st 2024, the Israeli military begins an invasion of southern Lebanon. Israeli operations lead to the significant dismantling of Hezbollah's military infrastructure in southern Lebanon and the destruction of a large portion of its missile stockpile.

In October 2024 Iran attacks Israel with a barrage of 200 ballistic missiles in retaliation for Israel assassinating Hamas leader Ismail Haniya in Tehran. The attack is mostly successfully repelled by Israel and its allies without significant damage. 

In December 2024 the Assad regime in Syria, which had been supported by Iran through Hezbollah, falls to rebels. 

In January 2025, Trump takes office for his second term. 

In February 2025, Trump reinstates the maximum pressure campaign to push Iran into a new nuclear deal.

In April 2025, to Netanyahu's complete surprise, the Trump administration begins negotiations toward a new nuclear agreement in Oman. Five rounds of negotiations take place through the month of May with the Trump administration announcing that they are making progress. Round 6 of negotiations is schedule for June 15th. 

On June 12, 2025 IAEA finds Iran non-compliant with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years.

Israel attacks targets across Iran on June 13, 2025.

The Terrorist State

The modern international system lacks a clear designation for what should be called a Terrorist State. While international law deals with terrorism and state responsibility, it stops short of applying a legal label to regimes that define themselves not merely by repression or aggression, but by the use of terror as a core instrument of rule and ideology. This gap leaves the global community without the vocabulary—or the policy tools—to confront regimes like Iran for what they truly are.

Iran is not simply a repressive theocracy or a regional aggressor. Since its Islamic Revolution in 1979, it has positioned itself as the vanguard of a transnational mission to remake the Muslim world in its own image. That mission is not economic or territorial, but ideological. It is rooted in a medieval, absolutist religious worldview that divides the world between believers and infidels, and that seeks to export the revolution by any means necessary—often through violence. Iran does not merely support terrorism; it defines itself through it.

What distinguishes a Terrorist State is not just the support it gives to militant groups, but its ideological commitment to political violence, its active sponsorship or direct engagement in terrorism beyond its borders, and its rejection of the legitimacy of the international system itself. In Iran’s case, this includes funding, training, and directing groups like Hezbollah and Hamas; open calls for the destruction of Israel; and a constitutional framework that enshrines the export of its revolution as a national duty.

Unlike other authoritarian regimes that may use violence internally, Iran wields terrorism as a tool of foreign policy, and it does so with doctrinal purpose. This sets it apart not just from democracies, but even from other autocracies. It does not participate in the international community in good faith because it does not recognize its legitimacy. To Iran’s leadership, institutions like the United Nations are products of an infidel world order that must be resisted and ultimately overthrown.

Given these facts, we need to articulate a clear, international definition of a Terrorist State—not just as a rhetorical flourish, but as a formal classification. Such a designation should be based on clear criteria: (1) a regime’s ideological commitment to violence as a central political tool, (2) its systematic support for terrorism beyond its borders, and (3) its rejection of sovereign legitimacy and international norms. Iran meets all three criteria.

Labeling a regime a Terrorist State would carry consequences: diplomatic isolation, expulsion from international organizations, global sanctions, and legal accountability for its leadership. But more than that, it would provide moral and strategic clarity. We cannot confront a threat we refuse to name. The inability—or unwillingness—of the international system to call Iran what it is has emboldened its leadership and endangered its neighbors. It's time to stop treating Iran like a normal country, and start treating it like the threat it openly declares itself to be.

The Golden Opportunity

Your neighbor has been stockpiling weapons in their house. This neighbor openly hates you—they call you their sworn enemy and have threatened your family for years. They say they want you dead. They call you evil and declare their commitment to your annihilation.

Meanwhile, you go about your life. You raise your family. You go to work. You try to live in peace. But every so often, they vandalize your property. They hire others to deface your home, disrupt your life, and make your existence miserable. You install alarms, cameras, and hire private security. You do everything you can to protect yourself. But the threats and harassment never stop—and the weapons keep piling up next door. At what point are you justified in striking back?

That’s been Israel’s situation with Iran for decades. After years of threats, attacks, and proxy wars, Israel is striking back. This is not the beginning of a conflict. It’s an escalation of a long, grinding, existential war that Israel has been forced to wage for years.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its open hostility, and its sponsorship of groups like Hezbollah are not abstractions for Israel—they are lived realities. The October 7th massacre—the single greatest security failure in Israel’s history—was a turning point. In the neighbor analogy, imagine one of your enemy’s henchmen broke into your house, murdered two of your children, and kidnapped another. Would that not cross a red line? Would you still feel safe doing nothing while your neighbor continued stockpiling weapons and plotting your demise?

But Israel's response wasn’t just reactive. It was also strategic. The crippling of Hezbollah, Iran’s most advanced frontline proxy, was a major military success. Israel is now saying that its goal is to eliminate the nuclear threat. In the short term, this might be achievable through airstrikes. But in the medium to long term, it can’t do it alone. It needs American assistance—specifically, the B-2 bombers and bunker-busting munitions that only the U.S. can provide. Will that help come? Probably not.

Trump, despite his bluster, is unlikely to commit U.S. forces to another Middle East war. At most, he will offer intelligence and weaponry. His MAGA base has no appetite for a new conflict. His foreign policy is driven by strategic incoherence because all he cares about is personal ambition—namely, his obsession with winning the Nobel Peace Prize. He fantasized about brokering deals to end the Russia-Ukraine war or the Gaza conflict in 24 hours of taking office. Predictably, those plans didn't materialize. Now that Israel and Iran are fighting it out, trump sees it as another shot at the Nobel. As if Iran would now return to the negotiating table with the U.S. It's craven and unserious. 

In the meantime, Israel is left to act alone.

Even if Israel succeeds in setting back Iran’s nuclear program a decade, that alone won’t guarantee long-term security. The only real solution, ultimately, is regime change in Iran. But that, as history has shown again and again, is a perilous and unpredictable road. Airstrikes won’t spark democracy. Killing leaders doesn’t guarantee transformation. And even if the regime collapses, what replaces it? A freer Iran—or something worse? No one knows. That’s the grim uncertainty Israel faces.

But one thing is clear: the United States, once the unshakable anchor of global order, can no longer be counted on to lead. Israel has offered it a golden opportunity to reassert moral leadership, strength and principle. But trump, and much of the political establishment, are unlikely to take advantage of it. And the worst outcome - which America's unwillingness to act could guarantee - is that Iran survives the war relatively intact and rushes to get nuclear weapons, probably with Russia's assistance.

Israel must press forward, alone if necessary. It has no choice. No nation can afford to live next door to someone who openly seeks its destruction—and does nothing.

American Weakness Playing Out

My first thought is that this is yet another example of American weakness—perhaps the most acute I’ve seen in my lifetime.

Israel’s so-called "preemptive" strike on Iran—Netanyahu’s term—is more accurately described as a 'preventive' attack. 'Preemptive' implies an imminent threat; this was a long-planned, calculated effort to prevent Iran from reaching a point where such a threat would become real. The strike was motivated by several factors, not least of which is the weakness of the United States, which has been attempting to quietly renegotiate terms of the JCPOA, the Obama agreement that trump cancelled in his first administration. Netanyahu was not going to allow that to happen.

The statements coming out of Washington have been astonishingly feeble—almost pleading with Tehran not to retaliate against the U.S. Officials emphasized that trump had been “informed” in advance, in order to allow American personnel in the region to prepare. This only reinforces what Iran already believes: that the United States and Israel are indistinguishable. And yet, despite that understanding, the U.S. under trump has once again demonstrated its willingness to throw even its closest allies under the bus. Israel knows this—and acted accordingly.

There are other reasons for the timing of the attack, both political and strategic. From Israel’s perspective, the window of opportunity was closing. Iran’s air defenses were compromised by previous Israeli strikes. The leadership and structure of Iran’s regional proxies—Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—have all been severely weakened. Netanyahu’s government is teetering on the brink of collapse, and he is fighting for his political life. Trump, for his part, is mired in historically low approval ratings, domestic chaos, and a string of damaging headlines. All of this plays into the decision.

My sense is that this war will be protracted. Iran’s ability to absorb Israeli attacks, and respond in asymmetric and unconventional ways, should not be underestimated. Iran has a wide range of options: through proxies, cyberattacks, and possibly even sleeper cells. The stated goal of the strikes is to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Israel can damage and delay that effort but cannot destroy it without U.S. support. And the U.S. cannot be relied upon to participate, at least not overtly. Even if American forces are directly attacked, as seems likely, the response will be muted. Trump is full of bluster, but fundamentally weak.

If Israel’s unspoken objective is regime destabilization in Tehran, the outcome may be the opposite. Being attacked may well strengthen the hardliners, galvanize nationalist sentiment, and give the regime cover to crack down even harder on dissent.

The underlying reality is that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. It doesn’t officially acknowledge this, but everyone knows. If Iran succeeds in acquiring a nuclear weapon—and I believe it’s inevitable—it would not pose an existential threat to Israel unless one assumes Iran is suicidal. I don’t believe it is.

As hard as it may be to accept, the past 80 years have shown that nuclear weapons, in practice, tend to bring a form of stability. They deter large-scale wars, not provoke them. Of course, there are no guarantees. The fear is that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of malign or irrational actors. And yes, fewer nuclear states make that less likely. But it’s important to remember that nuclear weapons aren’t like handguns. They’re incredibly difficult to develop, maintain, and deploy. Iran has been working toward this goal for decades and still isn’t there.

Much of the public discourse around nuclear weapons is shaped by our collective fears, fed by more familiar, intimate forms of violence: school shootings, church massacres, random acts of terrorism. But these are not the same as state-led nuclear strategy. One is chaos; the other is calculus.

We may be entering a new phase in the Middle East, one defined by long wars, proxy conflicts, and the slow erosion of American influence. Israel's actions are the clearest indication of that shift. It will take a while until we have a sense of the new order that will emerge. In the meantime the bloody human costs are likely to be heartbreakingly high. 

Brian Wilson is Gone

I was genuinely heartbroken to hear that Brian Wilson died. It feels like the passing of an era — in a different way than Sly Stone’s recent death.

Not that I was a huge Beach Boys fan growing up. The whole surf music scene was a bit before my time. By the late '70s, when I was saving up allowance money to buy albums by Elton John, Steely Dan, or Pink Floyd, the Beach Boys already seemed passé. At bar mitzvah parties, I’d cringe at the sight of parents dancing to “Surfin’ Safari” or “Surfin’ USA,” doing their best Chubby Checker moves, while I’d slink off to a corner and smirk.

It was only later, when many of my rock heroes — from Paul McCartney to Elvis Costello to even Van Halen — began citing Brian Wilson as a musical genius and an influence, that I started paying attention. Suddenly Pet Sounds was being hailed as perhaps the greatest rock album of all time — often listed just behind Sgt. Pepper. That made me reconsider. These guys weren’t just singing about California girls and beach parties.

“Good Vibrations” had bizarre, experimental, beautiful musical elements — mid-song key changes, and who puts a theremin in a pop song? And that arpeggiated bass intro (I was learning to play the instrument at the time) grabbed me immediately. Then came “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” and “God Only Knows” — two of the most harmonically rich and emotionally sophisticated pop songs ever written. I began to understand: Brian Wilson, along with Lennon and McCartney, was one of the most important composers of the pop era, helping elevate rock music from commercial fluff to something resembling genuine art.

But back to those bar mitzvah parties.

These days, I keep hearing stories about musicians making much of their income playing private gigs for billionaires. Sure, there are still a few superstar acts — Bruce Springsteen can still sell out Wembley for five nights, and Taylor Swift, who has been building her following since the early 2000s — but they’re increasingly rare. For many others, the new live music economy revolves around corporate parties, weddings, and yes, bar mitzvahs.

When I was growing up, the idea that an act like Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones would play a private event was laughable. They were untouchable, living gods of music, flying around the world in private jets not to serve others but to fulfill their own debauched mythologies. We idolized them because they seemed so far beyond us.

Today, the script has flipped. Now it’s the tech billionaires who live the jet-set life of excess, while many musicians — some of them legit chart-toppers — are left to hustle for a living. Beyoncé, Drake, even someone named Flo Rida (apparently a huge star) — have all reportedly played bar mitzvahs for kids who’ll never understand how rare and absurd that once would have been.

It’s a commentary on our time. Back then, singer-songwriters were revered as mystics, poets and visionaries. We studied liner notes, memorized lyrics, lived inside their albums. A new tour announcement was like the coming of a prophet. Scoring a concert ticket felt like gaining entry to a holy rite. We sang every word together, our voices merging with theirs. Listen to any live album from that era — you can hear the devotion in the crowd.

That era is gone. Brian Wilson is gone. I’m now approaching the age where I might be invited to a grandchild’s bar mitzvah. I just wish I knew a few billionaires.

War Crimes

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG

(Dedicated to the largely ignored people of Sudan)

They're investigating war crimes,

Digging up mass graves.

The silence that you're hearing—

Comes from those we couldn't save.

You and I are here,

Witness to the cost.

Trying to count the broken ways,

That prove how much was lost.

There won’t be any trials,

Only the victims pay.

The ones who give the orders,

Will always walk away.

The headlines don’t mean nothing—

Just feed the scroll of fear.

They keep us glued to chaos,

Just thankful we're not there.

War crimes,

It goes by many names.

War crimes,

No one takes the blame.

War crimes,

The world’s gone up in flames.

War crimes,

We wear it like a stain.

We watch the ways they suffer,

In godforsaken lands.

Fertilized with hatred,

By warlords and their clans.

You can blame the leaders,

You can blame the banks.

Blame god and the gunmakers,

Who draw a moral blank.

War crimes,

It goes by many names.

War crimes,

No one takes the blame.

War crimes,

The world’s gone up in flames.

War crimes,

We wear it like a stain.

Greta, Greta, Greta

When did your mission turn from saving the planet from ecological destruction for your generation to freeing Palestine? I guess you started to realize that the whole climate change thing was becoming passé and turning into a sort of attention-getting dead end. So you decided to wrap yourself in the keffiyeh to stay relevant and in the news. For a 22-year old you're pretty savvy. Hard to believe you've been doing this for 10 years already. But most of us can see through it. The boat on a mission to 'feed' the Palestinians was too obviously a media stunt. I get it. Like so many who rise to fame in the era of social media you've become a brand, and whether you know it consciously or not, you're thinking about brand relevance and expansion. I find that sad. I liked you much better when you were an innocent, serious, earnest, well-meaning Swedish elementary school child who decided that you had to do something drastic to save the world. So you went on 'strike' and became a media darling. Now you're just self-important. My suggestion is, don't spread yourself too thin. Don't get involved in political matters you clearly know nothing about. It will only dilute your credibility and appeal. When you were a quizzical 11-year old calling for your elders to stop destroying your generation's future all you needed for credibility was sincerity. When it comes to complicated political issues - not that climate isn't political, but it's not like you have to take 'sides' - it behooves you to have some education. Seems like that's emblematic of your generation in the attention economy - the combination of activist theatrics and ignorance. I was hoping that you wouldn't fall for it. Become one of those jaded social media justice warrior types. It starts looking like careerism.

Hearing A Lot, Knowing A Little

The past three days have been the worst, in public relations terms, that Israel has suffered since the start of the Gaza war—and given how bad it’s been throughout, that’s saying a lot. There are reasons for this—some for which Israel is clearly responsible, and others less so.

We’re hearing a lot of information. What we actually know is far less.

What We Know:

New food aid distribution points have been set up in Gaza by an organization calling itself the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). It’s a U.S.- and Israeli-funded non-profit incorporated in Delaware. The goal of this new system was twofold: logistical and political. First, to stop Hamas from looting and reselling food aid originally distributed through the UN. Second, to displace the UN entirely, since Israel sees it as biased and sympathetic to Hamas.

But the UN had 400 small distribution points across Gaza, staffed by trained personnel with experience in large-scale humanitarian operations. The GHF, by contrast, is starting from scratch. It has taken a very different approach: opening a handful of large distribution sites—up to ten total—mostly in southern Gaza, staffed and secured by private U.S. contractors. The IDF is not directly involved but maintains a security perimeter at a distance.

One thing is clear: so far, it has been an unmitigated disaster.

What We Hear:

On May 27th, the second day of operations, GHF lost control of its first site when thousands of desperate people, including women and children, rushed to get food. Israeli troops fired “warning shots,” and staff were forced to flee to avoid casualties. According to the Hamas-run Media Office, Israeli tanks opened fire, killing 10 Palestinians and wounding 62.

More incidents followed: on June 1st, 31 people were reported killed and 170 injured near another site. On June 3rd, 27 more were reportedly killed, with 161 injured in Rafah. Hamas immediately blamed Israel, calling the events “massacres” and “war crimes,” and circulated video footage of chaos and wounded civilians—images that have been broadcast around the world.

Israel has scrambled to respond, releasing its own video from May 27th which appears to show that it was actually Hamas gunmen who opened fire on the crowd.

Let’s be clear: Hamas’s account cannot be taken at face value. It has every incentive to see the new aid system fail. That said, Israel’s response has been abysmal.

David Mencer, the Israeli government spokesman with the polished British accent, has been making the media rounds. His core message is that all reports coming out of Gaza are propaganda from the Hamas-run Health Ministry and should not be trusted. In every interview, the obvious question follows, namely, if that’s true, then why doesn’t Israel allow international journalists into Gaza to independently verify what’s happening? Mencer’s answer: “Israel’s job is not to get journalists in safely, it’s to get our hostages out safely.” It’s a terrible answer. It’s an obvious deflection. Worse, it highlights how unsuccessful Israel has been at getting hostages out. It also fuels the perception that Israel has something to hide.

Mencer knows full well that journalists have covered dangerous war zones for generations—from World War II to Vietnam to Iraq. It’s their job. Whether or not they go is a decision for their media organizations, not Israel. Yes, it's true that journalists being killed is damaging for Israel, which is perceived to be in control of Gaza. But that’s not an argument against access—it’s an argument for transparency. Mencer also points out that most "citizen journalists" in Gaza have to be favorable to Hamas or they will be killed. Probably true. But isn't that more reason to allow in independent professionals?

For all its flaws, replacing the UN was likely a mistake. Hamas fighters hiding in UN buildings was a military problem. But swapping a flawed but functioning system for a brand new, barely operational one has turned out to be both a logistical disaster and a public relations catastrophe. Hungry, desperate people are now being herded into a few chaotic sites with minimal infrastructure. The resulting images—chaos, stampedes, bodies—are deeply damaging, and not just to Israel’s image. They’re feeding doubts about the motivations of Israel’s leadership and giving its critics a devastating narrative: that Israel is deliberately making life unlivable to push for what it calls “voluntary, temporary displacement.”

The more these images circulate, the harder that accusation becomes to refute.

Asymmetries

I suddenly realized something about the conflict between Israel and Hamas — something so obvious that most of us overlook it. And yet, I believe it's central to the intense emotions many of us are experiencing: the anger, the moral outrage, the sense of injustice, futility, and helplessness.

We often say — and truly believe — that both Israel and Hamas should be held accountable for their actions. But then why does it feel like Israel is the one being relentlessly piled on? Is it simply because Israel is behaving worse?

I don’t think so.

The real reason, I believe, lies in a fundamental asymmetry of the conflict.

Israel can be held accountable — and is, every single day. By its own citizens, its own media, its courts, and by the international community. There are rules, standards, and legal frameworks we expect it to uphold. And so we scrutinize, we criticize, we protest, we judge.

Hamas, on the other hand, is a terrorist organization — a non-state actor, operating outside any accepted legal framework or governing norms. It has no courts, no free press, no civic institutions, no mechanisms of self-restraint. It is accountable to no one, not even to the Palestinian people who live under its rule. In fact, many of its supporters celebrate this lack of accountability as a kind of virtue — proof that it isn’t constrained by “Western values” or international law.

Let me be clear: I would never argue that we should lower the standards we apply to Israel in order to create a "level playing field." Quite the opposite. The solution is not to demand less of Israel — it’s to demand more of Hamas. To insist on the same level of accountability, transparency, and moral responsibility from all parties engaged in violence, especially those who claim to act in the name of justice or liberation.

Until we recognize and address this fundamental asymmetry, our debates about this conflict will remain emotionally charged and morally incoherent. If we want to discuss this tragedy honestly and productively, we need to keep this imbalance — between a state bound by law and a group defined by lawlessness — firmly in view.

How Worried Should We Be About the Latest Violence Against Jews?

In the past two weeks, we’ve witnessed two deeply alarming incidents in the United States: the cold-blooded murder of two Israeli Embassy staffers on the streets of Washington, D.C., outside a networking event, and this past weekend’s attack in Boulder, Colorado, where Molotov cocktails and a homemade flamethrower were used on a gathering for hostages, injuring twelve people. In both cases, the attackers reportedly shouted “Free Palestine,” making clear these were politically motivated hate crimes targeting Jews. Add to this the firebombing of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s house on Passover, and the pattern becomes harder to ignore.

It’s important to distinguish here between anti-Semitism as a broad category and anti-Jewish violence as a specific, physical threat. Anti-Semitic incidents come in many forms—defaced synagogues, swastikas on campuses, hate speech, and online harassment. The vast majority of them are intended to intimidate and harass, not to kill. When we talk about the documented rise in anti-Semitism over the past decade, we are usually referring to these non-violent, though no less toxic, acts.

According to the "State of Anti-Semitism in America 2024" report, published in February 2025, 33% of American Jews said they had personally experienced anti-Semitism—either in person or online—within the past year. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has tracked a steady increase in reported incidents since 2016, with the most significant spike—an estimated 360%—occurring between 2021 and 2022, coinciding with the intensification of the war in Gaza.

But acts of 'bodily violence' against Jews remain relatively rare, and deadly attacks even more so. If we’re looking at numbers—and I recognize the discomfort in reducing this issue to statistics—far more Jews in recent years have been harmed or killed by right-wing extremism than by leftist political violence. There are structural reasons for this: right-wing extremists tend to hold explicitly racist and anti-Semitic worldviews, and they often glorify violence and 'gun culture'. Combine those elements, and you get a high potential for lethal outcomes.

The deadliest attacks on American Jews in modern memory remain the Tree of Life synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh (October 2018, 11 killed), and the shooting at a synagogue in Poway, California (April 2019, one dead, three injured). These followed the 2017 “Blood and Soil” white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia—a rally whose open Nazi iconography and anti-Jewish chants signaled a turning point in mainstreaming hate.

What makes the most recent attacks so unsettling is that they don’t fit the profile we’ve come to expect. Protest slogans and campus activism are usually where leftist anger over Israel and Gaza manifests—not Molotov cocktails and targeted killings. The question naturally arises: is this a new trend?

I don’t think so.

One commonality links the violent attacks of 2018 and those we’ve just seen: Donald Trump is President. While the Colorado attacker reportedly told authorities he had been planning an attack for a year, it’s not a stretch to suggest that he chose this particular moment to act because the political climate now feels opportune.

The President sets the national tone. Traditionally, presidents have used the authority of their office to calm tensions and unite the country. Trump does the opposite. When he isn’t providing comfort to right-wing extremists—offering them a permission structure for their hate—he’s promoting conspiracies that demonize immigrants and minorities. In true form, trump responded to the Colorado attack by posting, “He came in through Biden’s ridiculous Open Border Policy, which has hurt our Country so badly... This is yet another example of why we must keep our Borders SECURE, and deport Illegal, Anti-American Radicals from our Homeland.” No expression of sympathy for the victims. No condemnation of violence. No call for calm. Just more gasoline on an already smoldering fire.

Do I believe something fundamental has changed in America? Is America a more anti-Semitic society now than ten or twenty years ago?

Actually, no. I’d argue the opposite is likely true: most Americans today are more tolerant and open-minded than in previous generations. But extremists—on both ends of the spectrum—have become more emboldened, particularly under trump. And that’s why we are seeing more mass violence across the board. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there were over 488 mass shootings (defined as four or more victims) in the U.S. in 2024 alone—more than one per day.

Viewed in that context, the recent attacks in Washington and Colorado, as horrific as they are, may not be signs of something new. They are signs of something worsening: a political and cultural atmosphere in which hate is not just tolerated but activated.

The threat to Jews in America right now is real. But it’s not rooted in a sudden surge of popular anti-Semitism. It’s rooted in the dangerous convergence of extremism, impunity, and a political leadership that fuels division instead of diffusing it.

We should be concerned. Not because America has become a nation of anti-Semites, but because we are failing to contain those who are.

Has Israel Gone Too Far?

A debate I’ve been having recently with friends and family centers around a question that feels increasingly urgent: Has Israel gone too far?

Of course, the difficult part is defining what “too far” means. We all support Israel’s right—indeed, its necessity—to defend itself. But at what point does legitimate self-defense cross into unjustifiable cruelty?

I want to add my small, unimportant voice to the growing chorus of more prominent ones, including most recently Ehud Olmert. Yes, he’s a long-time political rival of Netanyahu and an opponent of the current government—his words should be weighed accordingly. But hearing a former Israeli Prime Minister publicly suggest that Israel may be committing war crimes is jarring. I never imagined I’d hear those words from someone who once held that office.

For me, the unease began when Israel started blocking food aid from entering Gaza. I’m uncomfortable for two reasons. First, the act of stopping food trucks—especially in a war zone—has always been, in my mind, beyond the pale. It invites a humanitarian disaster. If Israel controls what enters and exits Gaza—and it does—then Israel bears responsibility. The images of Gaza reduced to rubble and of vast tent camps are tragic, but can be argued as the grim byproduct of Hamas’s strategy of embedding within civilian areas. But starving a population is a different matter. And I knew the inevitable images of malnourished children would not only be heartbreaking—they would undermine Israel’s claim to moral legitimacy.

The claim that Hamas steals the food is, to me, a deflection. That’s not the point. Whether trucks are allowed in is the point. If allowing aid means some of it is misappropriated by Hamas, that is a tragic but tolerable cost—far less morally corrosive than the alternative of collective starvation. It doesn't change the military calculus. But it does change the moral one.

Second, I’m unsettled by how many Israel supporters—again, people I know and love—are willing to justify nearly any action in the name of self-defense. Withholding food does nothing meaningful to weaken Hamas. Yet too many have chosen to shelve their morality in favor of political allegiance. I started seeing this trend when trump floated his abhorrent 'proposal' to 'develop' Gaza into a playground for the rich. I called it what it was: ethnic cleansing. I was shocked at how many people didn’t just dismiss it outright. It reminded me of other, darker times in history when seemingly decent people found ways to rationalize monstrous acts in pursuit of political ends.

Back then, Jews were the victims. Now, it feels as though the shoe is on the other foot.

When someone like Olmert—or former IDF general and politician Yair Golan—publicly voices serious accusations against the Israeli government, their motives may be political. That doesn’t mean their concerns are invalid. I’ve never believed Israel’s greatest threat came from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, or even Iran. Israel has the military and intelligence capabilities to defend itself against these threats. I’ve long believed that the tragedy of October 7th was less a surprise and more the result of colossal government failure. I wouldn’t say it was self-inflicted, but Hamas walked through a door that Israel’s negligent leadership left wide open.

The threat I fear most comes from within.

Israel, like the U.S., is in the midst of a prolonged internal crisis. I trace its roots back to November 4, 1995, when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a religious extremist. That act of political violence marked the beginning of Israel’s rightward drift and the increasing power of religious parties. Since then, an alliance between the secular right and the religious bloc has grown stronger, more entrenched, and more extreme.

The greatest danger facing Israel today is political Messianism.

Messianism is the ideological belief in a divinely sanctioned destiny, immune to compromise and fueled by absolute moral certainty. Nazism was a form of Messianism—rooted in mythologies of racial purity. So is jihadism, which cloaks political violence in the language of divine justice. I say this with a heavy heart, but I fear a growing number of Jews—both in Israel and in the diaspora—are falling under a similar spell.

Too many no longer speak of co-existence. Instead, they speak of conquest; annexing Judea and Samaria, expelling Palestinians, and turning Gaza into a buffer zone or a ghost town. The current “plan” for Gaza, such as it is, seems aligned with this dangerous thinking.

Not all Jews believe this, of course. Many—like myself—are heartbroken. We believe in Israel, love Israel, and want nothing more than to see it live in peace and dignity among its neighbors. But the soul of our homeland is being torn apart. If we don’t speak up now, we may soon find that there’s nothing left to defend—except the memory of what Israel once aspired to be.

The Broken

I've been labeled a trump-hater. My response is always the same: I don't hate trump. He's a fool, a clown, a lowlife, a child, a scam artist—he is what he is. You can't blame trump for being psychologically and morally damaged. I don't hold him responsible for his nature. I blame the people who choose to elevate and support such an obviously damaged person. If there is one truism in politics, it's that we get the leaders we deserve. The leaders we elevate tell us far less about them and everything about us. And the picture this paints is ugly.

Well, not here in Canada, not so much anyhow. With our recent choice of leader—a smart, highly educated, accomplished, competent, and decent person—we seem to be in relatively good shape. Justin Trudeau, for all his vacuousness and inexperience early on, always seemed to have his heart in the right place. That counts for something.

Trump is a profoundly self-centered, hollow, malignant, uncaring, vengeful, and broken individual. He is not an aberration; he is an avatar—a projection of the people who support him. And that, more than trump himself, is what should alarm us. He is not Hitler. He is not a fascist ideologue. He is something more banal and insidious: A self-enriching, historically ignorant, narcissistic commercial brand masquerading as a political movement.

Still, the comparison between America in the early 21st century and Germany in the early 20th century is not entirely misplaced. As in Weimar Germany, trump's rise reflects a society disoriented by loss, humiliation, and rapid change. Hitler rose from the ashes of defeat espousing a mythic vision of national rebirth. Trump, in his own way, invokes a mythical past, blames foreigners and "elites" for decline, and presents himself as the only saviour. The difference is that Hitler was an ideologue, he believed in something greater than himself —something horrifying, yes, but coherent. Trump believes only in himself and leverages the national symbols for the purposes of self-aggrandizement and enrichment.

The deeper issue is this: broken people choose broken, destructive leaders. By "broken," I mean people who are hopeless, alienated, detached from meaning and community. People who feel victimized and unseen. Such people are drawn to lies that comfort and communities that offer rigid belonging. Broken people are prime targets for cults, conspiracies, and authoritarianism. In this context the analogy of  Germany is appropriate.  

The brokenness that we see in politics has its roots in the fragmentation of the social fabric that began decades ago, during the 1960s—a decade of enormous social upheaval in the U.S. The Vietnam War, political assassinations, the rise of feminism, the questioning of traditional authority, family dissolution, the decline of organized religion and civic groups—all of it contributed to a kind of cultural splintering. That process has strenghthened and accelerated in recent decades with the rise of algorithmically-driven social media. Put plainly, the social forces that are pulling us apart, especially with the new individualized technologies, have become vastly stronger than the ones promoting unity and cohesion. Trump exemplifies the political expression of this fragmentation reaching the mainstream. 

Again, Trump is not Hitler. But that doesn’t make him harmless. He damages institutions, corrodes trust, and fosters extremism. The real danger isn’t just him, but what he represents: a profound disintegration of shared values and disenchantment with civic life. This problem doesn’t have a quick fix. It can’t be solved with a better candidate or a sharper debate performance. It can't be repaired by policy choices. That's why we have seen the Democrats struggle to find a voice. It's why the media has struggled so haplessly to cover the new discourse. Conventional politics doesn't address the basic problem. This is a cultural and psychological crisis as much as a political one.

The path toward restoring a political discourse of common sense and decency needs to engender rebuilding trust, community, and common purpose. That will take time, imagination, and institutions willing to evolve. Trump is a symptom, not a cause. The illness is a fragmented, disillusioned society. We may be distracted by the clown show for a while - who doesn't love a circus? But eventually the circus leaves town and we'll have to clean up the mess. There will be a reckoning.  

Mr. Klein

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG

I knew a man named Mr. Klein,

Though I wouldn’t call him a friend of mine.

The way he looked he seemed quite kind,

Asked how he was, he'd mutter, "Just fine."

He was medium height and overweight,

Wore a jacket and tie that looked out of date.

If he had something to say he'd hesitate,

Like a man who appeared resigned to his fate. 

Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein, sing me a song,

About times you remember and all you've known. 

Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein, recite me a poem,

About the people that you loved long ago. 

Mr Klein to me seemed sort of sad,

I'd see him in the park with a paper bag.

Feeding the squirrels then cleaning his hand,

Trying to decipher the graffiti tags.

They say he was a lawyer, and a teacher too,

Had travelled from Jerusalem to Katmandu.

Wrote sonnets, villanelles and even haiku,

But couldn't understand why all the tattoos.

Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein, sing me a song,

About times you remember and all that you've known. 

Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein, write me a poem,

About the people that you loved a long time ago. 

And then one day Mr. Klein wasn't seen,

No one asked about where he'd been.

How he was feeling, or why he left the scene,

Almost like he existed inside a screen.

I searched for him, he was on my mind,

Wondered why I didn't give him more of my time.

When I had the chance and I was in my prime,

I keep thinking about everyone he left behind.

Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein, sing me a song,

About times you remember and all that you've known, 

Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein, recite me a poem,

About the people that you loved a long time ago. 

Bloodhound For Your Love

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG

You say I look defeated,

But I'm a stubborn breed.

Dogged as a hound,

An animal of need.

My vision may be fading,

But my nose always knows.

Who you've been with,

How your story goes.

You’ve never had a lover

As passionate as me.

You’re a hard, hard woman—

You had to learn to be.

With all the weight you’re dragging,

The trauma and abuse,

You know I’d stand beside you,

And help to cut it loose.

I'm a bloodhound for your love, baby,

You know that I won't stop.

I'm a bloodhound for your love,

You know I can't give up.

You know I'm gonna find you,

You're always leaving clues.

I'm a bloodhound for your love,

And everything you do.

It don’t make no sense,

Don’t tell me that we’re through.

Your scent lives in my bones,

Like purple made with blue.

I know you want to run,

When things start getting real.

That feeling of distrust, 

Is your heart trying not to feel.

Some ties are invisible,

We all have our leash.

Some kind need their loyalty,

Some kind need release.

I'm vowing to protect you,

And you can call me blind.

Chasing after someone, 

Who never will be mine.

The Bullshitting President

Trump is different from all of his predecessors in uncountable (bad) ways. But perhaps the most consequential difference is how much he talks—publicly, constantly, and often incoherently. He holds press conferences, interviews, and impromptu gaggles with staggering frequency. According to Martha Joynt Kumar of the White House Transition Project, during his first 100 days in office, Trump held 129 press interactions, averaging nearly two per workday—far exceeding his six predecessors.

I use the word "talk" deliberately. What trump does is not "speaking" in the traditional sense. Speaking implies intent, coherence, and communication—a desire to convey ideas with clarity and purpose. What trump does is chatter. It is not communication; it is noise. And it should be taken as seriously as gossip—except that it comes from the most powerful office on the planet, which makes it dangerous.

This talking has two major effects. First, it captures media attention, which is trump’s primary objective. As long as he dominates the news cycle, he believes he is winning—and in a way, he’s right. The media, unable to ignore a sitting president, amplifies every word. And in doing so, they often assign meaning to his nonsense, creating the illusion of intentionality. The infamous phrase "take him seriously, not literally" is a symptom of this problem. It’s a baffling dodge, one that implicitly concedes that his words lack clarity, yet still insists they carry weight.

Second, trump’s barrage of words overwhelms the public—what strategist Steve Bannon once described as “flooding the zone with shit.” This torrent of contradiction and confusion offers plausible deniability. One moment, he says something outrageous; the next, he denies it or blames the “fake news.” The sheer volume numbs the audience. Supporters cherry-pick what they want to hear; everyone else starts to tune out entirely.

All of this leads to a central question: What can be done about a President who bullshits so much?

First, we must name it. As philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote in his essay "On Bullshit," the bullshitter isn’t concerned with truth or lies—only with what the moment demands. Trump doesn’t lie in the traditional sense (only sometimes); he speaks without regard for truth at all. That distinction matters. We must stop treating his utterances as misstatements or spin. Call it what it is: bullshit.

Second, stop translating nonsense into policy. Too often, media analysts and pundits try to make sense of trump's verbal detritus. They turn stray comments into headlines, parse incoherent rants as if they reflect serious policy. Instead, the media should contextualize the incoherence. Shift the burden of clarity back to the speaker.

Third, the media must resist the spectacle. That means less live coverage, more filtered reporting. Fact-checking should follow, not accompany, the noise. And coverage should be proportional—just because the president speaks doesn't mean it's newsworthy.

Trump’s talking style is not a sideshow; it is the show. It is central to how he maintains power. Understanding that is the first step toward neutralizing its corrosive effects.

And because I never felt important enough

And because I never felt important enough

To my parents,

Or to my friends,

Or to my lovers,

Or to my spouse,

Or to my children,

Or to my customers and followers,

Let me feel important enough

O Lord

To you. 

Give It All Away

CLICK HEAR TO HEAR THE SONG

I think I fell in love last night—

Don’t even know her name.

But what they say about it's true:

I’ll never be the same.

A bomb was dropped, the sirens blared,

The army never came.

The streets are ash, the children scream—

They’ll never be the same.

I heard my sister died last night,

I saw her yesterday.

She read her feed then took a pill,

And slowly slipped away.

A bill came in the mail last night,

I swore I wouldn't pay.

I’m running from my broken brain,

And debts I can't repay.

Give it all away,

Give it all away.

Every time they make you bleed.

Give it all away,

Give it all away.

Every time they feed your need.

I haven’t slept at all tonight—

Only me to blame.

I feel my body filling up,

Then leaking out again.

My heart is pounding with the noise,

Of headlines, grief, and fame.

And part of me will not believe,

It's all a stupid game.

When you love, you don't count your losses,

Don't name your every pain.

Hold her close—but not too close—

And give it all away.

They lied to you, they’re lying still.

Don’t listen when they say,

That all of this is all there is,

Just give it all away.