A WhatsApp message from a cousin of mine who lives and works in the United Arab Emirates:
Am fine. Worked from home for a few days, then went back to the office today. Things are relatively normal, despite the missiles and drones.
He’s an emergency room physician. Curious how long the normality lasts.
Notes on War and Complicity
There are many valuable criticisms and critiques of the Iran War out there, and at some point I hope to mention as many of them here as I can, but if you want one-stop shopping, the thing to read is Nathan Robinson’s “The Iran War Is Unfathomably Depraved” in the March 2026 issue of Current Affairs. I agree with literally everything in Robinson’s article except this one sentence:
We are all complicit.
No, we’re not. Continue reading
An Israeli security analyst on the supposed virtues of Israeli military strategy:
When you are the one initiating–not the one caught off guard–you can fight a war on two fronts more effectively,” said Sarit Zehavi, an Israeli analyst who studied Hezbollah for over 20 years, first as an Israeli intelligence officer, then as the head of Alma, an Israeli defense think tank focusing on Syria and Lebanon (“Israel’s plans in Lebanon, prepared well in advance, include the option of a deeper incursion, officials say,” The New York Times, March 3, 2026).
Something equally obvious: when “you are the one initiating,” you’re the one engaged in aggression, and you’re the one who forfeits any right of self-defense. So the advantage you gain in strategy is one you lose in morality, which translates to a loss of sympathy in a lot of people, including the ones you call “allies.” Continue reading
David French on the “legal and moral justifications for war” against Iran:
There is little question that we have many legal and moral justifications for war. When Trump spoke about Americans killed by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, that struck home for me. We lost men in my own unit to Iranian-backed militias using Iranian-supplied munitions. I knew those men, and I will never forget the terrible days when they fell.
In other words, twenty years ago, the United States initiated a war of aggression against Iraq premised on florid, systematic lies. The victims fought back, killing some of the aggressors. In answer to those acts of self-defense, we’re now obliged to initiate yet another war of aggression, this time against Iran, eliciting yet another round of defensive attacks by the successors of yesteryear’s victims. Continue reading
When I taught philosophy at Felician University (2008-2020), I was first Assistant and then Associate Professor of Philosophy, but I was also Chair of the Department of Philosophy, Coordinator of the Pre-Law Program, and Director of the Felician Institute for Ethics and Public Affairs. The first two were specifically academic titles, the last three administrative or quasi-administrative ones.
When George Abaunza, a professor of philosophy, became the Dean of Arts and Sciences, he insisted on retaining a 1:0 teaching load in philosophy, “just to keep his hand in the teaching game.” That request was granted, so he was, during his tenure as Dean, both an administrator and a member of the faculty. He also led the University’s General Education overhaul, which led to the complete overhaul of the Gen Ed curriculum as well as the University’s curriculum as such–just one of several quasi-administrative positions he held. Continue reading
Wherever you go, you’ll find imperialist wars described, particularly by their self-styled liberal opponents, as “wars of choice.” Having described a given war as a “war of choice,” the critic will then go on to criticize it as ill-conceived and ill-executed while conceding the underlying reason for going to war. The unspoken implication is that the same war, conceived and executed more competently, would have been perfectly justified. It’s just that this particular iteration is not. Continue reading
I just did a quick search, and it appears that I’ve written or posted some thirty-odd items on Iran over the last dozen years, almost all of them expressing opposition to the idea of war with Iran. A few date to the years 2014-2019, but the bulk cluster in the first few months of 2020, when the first Trump Administration decided to escalate against Iran. There are then a bunch of posts in mid 2025, corresponding to the last US-Israeli offensive against Iran last June, and then a few over the last month or so, in anticipation of the latest one.
Tomb of Hafez, Shiraz, Iran (photo credit: Amir Hussain Zulfaghary, Wikipedia)
There are many things to be said about Tucker Carlson’s remarkable interview with Mike Huckabee, too many to say all at once. So I’m going to take my time to say them, and say them in bite-sized portions.
There’s a distinction in ancient Greek philosophy that’s useful here, between virtue and skill. A virtue is a specifically moral disposition to thought and action, like honesty or justice. A skill is a pragmatically useful but morally neutral sort of know-how, like knowing how to play the guitar or ride a bike or swim. The possession of a skill is not the possession of virtue, and virtues in turn aren’t reducible to the possession of a skill or sets of skills. They’re just categorially different things. That said, both virtues and skills are objects of praise, just not the same kind of praise. They’re both achievements, just achievements of different kinds. Continue reading
The Intercept reports that Trump is menacing Iran with a massive armada capable of prolonged war. The Times of Israel is talking about a “countdown” to war. The Washington Post reports that satellite imagery shows a rapid increase of US military planes near Iran. Responsible Statecraft’s lead story concerns the inadequacy of airpower to achieve Trump’s stated goals in Iran: ground troops would be required. The Guardian’s top five stories concern the imminence of a US attack on Iran, same with Reuters. The Financial Times has a top story on the imminent Iran war as a crisis of Trump’s own making. Continue reading
A recent article in The New York Times by its so-called “national security correspondent” is an indication of how incompetent mainstream journalists are, and how unreflectively eager they are to do the bidding of the national security establishment they supposedly cover. The article is “Iran Could Direct Proxies to Attack U.S. Targets Abroad, Officials Warn,” by Eric Schmitt. Nothing in it is newsworthy or news. All of the work in it is done by its brainless and tendentious reliance on the term “terrorism.” Continue reading
Policy of Truth 