There is obviously a huge risk in sending an extra 40,000 machine-gun wielding troops into a country they don't understand to "clear" huge areas of insurgent fighters who look exactly like the civilian population, and establish "control" of places that have never been controlled by a central government at any point in their history.
To justify these risks, the proponents of the escalation need highly persuasive arguments to show how their strategy slashed other risks so dramatically that it outweighed these dangers. It's not inconceivable – but I found that in fact the case they give for escalating the war, or for continuing the occupation, is based on three premises that turn to Afghan dust on inspection.
Iran has submitted a 14-point response to the U.S. proposal to end the conflict that began...
On 28 February 2026, the first day of the war, the US and Israel launched a...
Senate Democrats called BS, literally, on Donald Trump’s claim that the war in Iran is over,...
In an extraordinary article published on 7 April, the New York Times described how Donald Trump...
