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.