Ashley Church: Who really defends Israel?

Analysing Trump's claim to be 'calling the shots'

Those of us of a certain age will remember Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, even if we don’t remember him by that name. During the 2003 Iraq War, al-Sahhaf was Saddam Hussein’s Information Minister and became a familiar media figure – frequently appearing on TV to insist that Iraq was winning the war and that the invaders were being crushed, even as American forces closed in on Baghdad.

Because of this, Western media dubbed him “Comical Ali” and “Baghdad Bob” because the gap between what he was saying and what everyone could see had become absurd.

Melanie Phillips: President Trump - a second Obama?

For the Iranian regime, the purpose of negotiations is to force America to surrender

From the start of the war with Iran, it was clear that the stakes couldn’t have been higher.

If the United States and Israel were to succeed in neutralising the Iranian regime, the outcome wouldn’t just have been the removal of a monstrous threat to Israel, the Iranian people and the world.

Dr Oliver Hartwich: Trump’s Iran war is paying for Putin’s

Russian power has always sat on a contradiction. The country can put satellites into orbit and tanks across borders, but it cannot build a normal economy.

Helmut Schmidt caught the contradiction in the 1970s when he called the Soviet Union “Obervolta mit Raketen,” Upper Volta with rockets. The line was brutal then, and it has aged well (even though Upper Volta is now called Burkina Faso).

Dave Patterson: Iran Is Out of Time

President Donald Trump has run out of patience with Iran. In an abrupt turn, the US president canceled a planned trip to Islamabad, Pakistan, by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to meet with an Iranian negotiating team to attempt to find an end to the Iran conflict. It has become clear that Tehran is using the meetings to simply string the US along, and now Trump has had enough. So, as things stand, the US controls the Arabian Gulf, and Iran does not.

Dr Oliver Hartwich: The art of the contradiction

On Tuesday morning, President Trump told CNBC he did not want to extend the ceasefire with Iran. Yet on Tuesday afternoon, he extended it.

Contradiction is the art of the deal. So it is no wonder that the entire war has been conducted this way.

On 28 February, the United States and Israel struck Iran. At first, the President said the operation would take four weeks or less. Then four to five weeks. Then “whatever it takes.”

Mike's Minute: The key player in this war

A bloke called Roman Gofman could be the key to all this.

Gofman is the incoming Director of Mossad.

If you believe the story about the war, Netanyahu got the intel that the heavyweights in Iran would all be in the same room on that fateful Saturday. So, if there was ever a time to strike this was it.

DTNZ: Trump orders blockade of Strait of Hormuz after failed Iran talks

The US president has said that he instructed the Navy to “interdict every vessel that has paid a toll to Iran,” accusing Tehran of extortion.

US President Donald Trump has declared that the US Navy will immediately begin a “blockade” of the Strait of Hormuz after talks with Iran in Islamabad ended without agreement. He accused Tehran of extortion, referring to the fees charged to vessels seeking to traverse the strategically vital waterway.

Damien Grant: Hug your kids today. They may be drafted tomorrow

I don’t often cite Karl Marx but the gentleman wasn’t without insight. In a letter to his colleague Frederick Engles in 1863 he wrote about decades that passed without incident “… though these may again [be] succeeded by days into which 20 years are compressed.”

This is the genesis of the saying that nothing happens for decades and then decades happen in a week. This past week seems one of those.

Melanie Phillips: The West’s fifth column

Much of the media and political class is willing America and Israel to lose to Iran

At around 2 a.m. on the last day of Passover in Israel, weary Israelis once again hauled themselves from their beds into air-raid shelters and safe rooms as the sirens started to wail.

Iran had fired yet more barrages of missiles at Israel and the Gulf states. That was its reaction to the announcement that had just been made by US President Donald Trump that Tehran had agreed to a two-week ceasefire. The regime’s response was immediately to break it.

Mark Angelides: What Did You Think Victory in Iran Would Look Like?

Like the national debt, politicos of all stripes treated the despotic regime in Iran as a problem for future generations to worry about – until President Donald Trump decided to make it an issue for now. With the ceasefire currently holding, the world seems split regarding whether the ten-point plan presently on the table is a win for Washington or Tehran. But what did the pundits think a victory in Iran would really look like?

Simon O'Connor: A fragile President and ceasefire

Some reflections on Donald Trump's recent comments and the somewhat ceasefire in the Middle East


Please note, events are moving very fast in the Middle East and changing almost as fast as I can write a paragraph. The ceasefire, for example, has already been breached as Iran continues to fire ordinance at Gulf States and the Strait of Hormuz is once again blocked. To that end, be aware some aspects of this Substack may soon be out of date.

There’s a ceasefire in the Middle East, somewhat. The details are sketchy and only time will tell if it holds for two weeks or longer.

Ani O'Brien: The Strait of Hormuz, Trump, and the end of Pretend Peace

The world held its breath today. The Leader of the “Free World” had threatened that “a whole civilisation will die tonight” and everyone seemed to take this very literally. And understandably so! This kind of rhetoric is not something we are used to from Western leaders. In the West we do diplomacy and handshakes and express disapproval. Well, we have in the years since the World Wars (with a few notable exceptions).

Brendan O'Neill: So Iran’s civilisation is safe. Now what about the West’s?

For all his digital bluster, it isn’t Trump who threatens to unravel our civilisation – it’s his influential haters.

Imagine calling for the destruction of a civilisation. Imagine dreaming about violently scrubbing an ancient nation from the face of the Earth. Imagine flirting with the idea of obliterating a land with thousands of years of rich history. I am referring, of course, to the activist class and its annihilationist hatred for the Jewish State. For nearly three years, these people have beat the streets and swarmed the digital networks to agitate for the erasure of Israel, all the way ‘from the river to the sea’. President Trump’s juvenile bluster on Iran has nothing on their existential loathing for the Jewish homeland.

Mike's Minute: Trump's way or the UN way?

So what is the alternative to what Trump has done in Iran?

The answer was discussed at a meeting over the weekend.

The British appeared to host it. 40 countries took part, including ours, and they were talking about what you might remember is the “global rules-based approach”.

That broadly was the way things were done pre-Trump.

Victor Davis Hanson: Iran, Anti-War or Anti-Trump? The Left’s ‘Hysterical’ Opposition to Iran War Explained

Victor Davis Hanson breaks down the media hysteria over Iran, anti-Trump protests, and the stakes for 2026. After everything Donald Trump has taken on, will division hand Democrats the win?

Click to view

Brendan O'Neill: Anti-Trump catastrophism is the real menace to the West

The cultural elite’s dream of an American defeat in Iran scares me far more than Trump’s premature claims of victory.

Snark really is all that President Trump’s critics have left. They greet his every utterance, whether made in the flesh or on Truth Social, with instant sarcastic derision. Their cliquish cynicism was on full display during Trump’s address to the nation on the Iran War last night. No sooner had Trump said the US was nearing victory than his opposing army of nay-sayers was gleefully crowing: ‘Nah, it’s a disaster, we’re screwed.’

I can’t be the only person who now finds this voguish gloom more grating than Trump’s starry-eyed statements? Give me Trump’s possibly premature declarations of victory over these wet dreams of defeat any day of the week.

Mark Angelides: Has the Iran Endgame Begun?

Beyond the partisan punditry, for President Donald Trump, the war in Iran appears to be coming to a conclusion. It may yet turn out to be not the type of conclusion he and his administration had envisioned when the first strikes were launched on February 28, but with just several weeks to go before Congress has to step in and either declare or demur, everything is now focused on the exit strategy.

Dave Patterson: Is Putting Troops on the Ground in Iran a Good Idea?

As the conflict in Iran continues, a debate is ongoing as to whether the US should put combat troops on the ground in Iran. Naysayers claim such an escalation is unnecessary and puts ground forces at risk. Those who favor the action are as resolute that without soldiers occupying Iranian real estate, there is no winning. Both positions are at opposite poles of the argument. Those against envision an invasion force storming the beaches and airdropping from the skies with enormous casualties. Those in favor believe that there is no opportunity to bring the Tehran government to submission without significant US forces on the ground. Neither position is necessarily right.

Melanie Phillips: Finish the job, Mr. President!

In the new reality of warfare, winning can be losing and losing can be winning

As the clock ticks away toward US President Donald Trump’s latest “negotiate or I unleash hell” deadline, the Iranian regime thinks that it’s winning.

In the West, the serried ranks of “experts” also think that America and Israel are heading either for a deepening quagmire or a humiliating retreat. It’s not possible to predict how the war against Iran will end — or even what the next day will bring.

Victor Davis Hanson: Week 3 - What’s Next In Iran?

By all traditional methodology and criteria, Iran is now inert: naval and air forces eviscerated, missile defenses offline, and an army rendered largely useless, as no one is fighting on the ground.

However, tactical success is not necessarily equivalent to strategic victory.

Click to view