This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well. Click “read more” to see the entries in this installment.
IRAN WAR
The US and Israel has started an illegal war against Iran. It’s illegal according to international law, and also US law. It cannot in any way be justified as self-defense.
As usual, they get away with it because of the US position in the world, and Israel still riding a wave of sympathy from the horrors of WW2 – in spite of years and decades of genocidal actions from their side.
Most commentators leave out that the Iranian regime came about through another US intervention, aimed at toppling the Iranian democratic government. The reason was that this democratic government wanted to nationalize the oil industry, to the benefit of the Iranian people.
These kinds of interventions have inherently unpredictable consequences. Iran got a strongly authoritarian anti-Western government following the US intervention decades ago. And who knows what this current war may lead to. It can go in a large number of very different directions. The wast majority of these are not good for the people in Iran, neighboring countries, or the world.
History shows that these kinds of interventions and wars rarely go to plan. It risks destabilizing the country and the region for years and decades. There is also a risk that any future governments may be worse than the previous/current one.
In this case, Iran has prepared for this war for decades. They have plans in place to replace killed leaders, and it will likely be someone more extreme. They have warned about making the war regional. Iran is a notoriously difficult country to invade, purely based on geography. (It’s huge and mountainous.)
Also, air wars don’t lead to regime change. (Other than making the regimes more extreme.) Any ground war will easily become yet another quagmire. And these kinds of interventions only create more hatred towards the aggressor, in this case the US and Israel.
Of the many possibilities for how this unfolds, let’s look at two extremes.
One is that it’s a brief war. Trump pulls out relatively quickly and declares victory. Most goes back to how it was, apart from increased repression and entrenchment from the Iranian regime. Trump seems to receive his orders from Israel in this situation, and a brief war that maintains status quo is not in Israel’s interest. Still, Trump may eventually – within weeks or a few months – decide to declare victory and leave devastation in his wake.
The other is a long war. If the US and Israel want regime change, it has to be a land war. And it has to, eventually, involve US and Israeli troops on the ground. This can last for a very long time, considering the geography of Iran. It will involve neighboring countries. And it will be accompanied by Iranian terrorism around the world. There is no guarantee that even this will lead to a regime change, or that a future regime will be any more democratic or friendly towards Israel and the West. There is also the possibility of an eventual civil war within Iran.
Trump in his hubris likely assumes the situation is simple and will go according to plan. (If he has one, which it doesn’t look like he has apart from a vague idea of “success”.) And just about everyone else in the world knows it very likely won’t. We know that life is far more complex, and people have their own minds. (In this case, Iran has prepared for decades for this war, the opposition is weak and disorganized, air strikes alone will not lead to regime change, and Iran has the means to drag it out indefinitely.)
Although Trump didn’t start any big wars during his first period, his rhetoric and orientation changed dramatically before the second period, so what we are seeing now is no surprise.
The name of this war, “Epic Fury”, sounds like it was created by someone with the emotional maturity of a five year old, and little to no empathy or understanding of the seriousness and tragedy or war.
Of course, these kinds of unnecessary and optional wars is what empires do. In this case, it’s a way for Trump to distract from poor ratings, terrible predictions for Republicans for the midterm elections this fall, and the Epstein files. In his deluded mind, the war may also appear as an easy win.
To me, right now, this looks like Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin thought it would be easy, just like Trump likely sees this war as easy. In each case, it will be anything but.
Also, in both cases, informed ordinary people – at least in Norway and Europe in general – seem to have a more accurate picture of the situation than the leaders. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was seen as meaningless and unnecessary, and an inevitable quagmire for Russia no matter how the war itself went. (The Ukrainians would never stop fighting an occupation, and they would eventually win even if it would take decades.) Trump’s invasion of Iran is seen as an equally meaningless and unnecessary war. If he persists, it will very likely be another quagmire.
To some extent, some leaders may want a quagmire since it gives a lasting external enemy and distraction, but it leads to nowhere good in the long run. In some cases, it leads to the end of the attacking empire. Quagmire wars drains huge amounts of resources, leads to internal unrest and dissatisfaction, makes them lose sympathy and support internationally, and is often both an expression of declining empires and contributing cause of their disintegration.
All of this is an expression of a strong domination orientation and culture. The unnecessary wars. The assumptions that it will go according to plan and be easy. The want to dominate. The assumption you have the right to decide the internal affairs of other countries. The desire for control.
From a legal point of view, the war is unjustified and illegal. From a practical point of view, it’s profoundly misguided. From a distraction point of view, it works.
P.S. When it comes to Israel, initiating this war seems like a trauma response, just like their ongoing genocide. They choose strategies that increase regional hatred against them, make them lose international sympathy, and ultimately make them less safe.
UPDATES / ADDITIONS
MARCH 2026
The US/Israel killed the previous head of state in Iran, and he is now – some days later – replaced by his son. He is likely to be more extreme than his father, not the least because most of his close family was killed in the attack. He has nothing to lose. That he would be replaced by someone as or more extreme was predicted and close to inevitable.
Iran is using relatively inexpensive drones to attack US bases and US allies in the region. This drains the US anti-missile/anti-drone rocket supply, and is an excellent tactic to eventually bring the US into a situation where they have to pull out. (Or escalate, which would create a long and terrible war.)
A few more days in, and Iran has now made the Hormuz strait unsafe for tankers. This was also predicted and close to inevitable. It means higher oil prices in the world and a huge boost for the Russian economy. As usual, Trump seems to intentionally and sometimes unintentionally (?) act in ways that benefit Putin. He also clearly doesn’t care about the finances and well being of ordinary people, including the citizens of the US.
The media is largely ignoring the main issue of this war – that it’s clearly illegal according to international law. If I was an editor or journalist, that’s something I would put at the forefront of most or all reporting on this war.
Who benefits from this war? Putin, obviously, since it drains US resources and improves Russian economy. Also, it benefits China. They may be a ruthless authoritarian regime, but they are at least smart about it. They focus on what matters, not unneccesary wars. So they will continue to strengthen, while the US weakens itself and continues to erode its empire.
Over two weeks in, and we are in a current energy crisis that was avoidable. Most countries in the world have chosen – and it is a choice – to continue to rely on fossil fuels. That makes them and their energy situation very vulnerable. If we collectively had transitioned to renewable energy, we would not have an energy crisis now.
It’s now three weeks since the war started. It seems increasingly likely that this will be a long war with a ground invasion, which means likely disaster for just about everyone involved and for the global economy. Trump is in the predicted and forecasted escalation trap.
Mainstream Western media, including CNN and BBC, now seem to blame Iran for fighting back. Who started this war? Are they not allowed to defend themselves?
Someone commented that authoritarians don’t understand that people have agency. They surround themselves with people who fear speaking up to them, and assume the rest of the world is like that too. Putin thought Ukrainians would welcome the Russian invasion and occupation. Trump thought the Iranian government would fold. Just about everyone else knows that the world is not that simple and people have their own mind and motivations.
I AM BAFFLED, AND NOT
As so often, I am partly baffled by this. History shows that these kinds of operations rarely if ever go to plan. An air war won’t give regime change. The opposition in Iran is weak and disorganized and will not be able to create a regime change. A ground war will be an immensely costly and drawn out quagmire. (Because of the mountainous geography and huge distances, the huge number of US/Israeli soldiers required to fight and win over a million Iranian soldiers, and a regime fighting a religious war and for their survival.)
So why does anyone think this is a good idea? Why do 40 percent of the population in the US still support it? Are they complete idiots? The answer is likely and sadly “yes”, in the sense that they are uninformed and easily misled.
APRIL 2026 – ILLEGAL, MISGUIDED, COSTLY
It’s now the first week of April, one month after the initial attacks by the US and Israel on Iran. I see that European media overwhelmingly (?) and accurately depict this war as illegal, misguided, and profoundly costly for the Iranian people, West Asia, and the world. And the mainstream US media, for whatever reason and in their usual lack of integrity, tend to lean more towards the Trump view.
I also notice that the US media seem to focus on the handful of US citizens killed so far, and much less on the thousands of Iranian killed. That is an expression of the dehumanization of empire, and I am surprised that editors and reporters go along with it. Are they in service of empire, or humanity? I guess the answer is, as it usually is, empire.
In terms of the Hormuz strait, Trump seems to want NATO countries to clean up his mess. Having someone clean up his mess is what he is used to, and he again brings his personal life to the world stage.
Also, I see Trump and others in the US advocate for a ground invasion of Kharg island, which also seems profoundly misguided. It can easily become a death trap, and it won’t impact Iran that much. (See, for instance, this video from CBC.)
PURGING OF THE US MILITARY
The Trump administration are firing competent top military leaders to replace them with less competent loyalists, and are gradually weeding out black and female leaders. This is obviously a recipe for disaster. Replacing people with less competent yes-men does not end well.
US MILITARY IS COMPLICIT IN ILLEGAL ACTIONS
It’s clear that the overwhelming majority of the US military – from top to bottom – go along with this war. They do so knowing it’s illegal, that they are actively taking part in a crime, that it’s profoundly misguided, and that a ground invasion will be a costly death trap. Why? Are they not trained to set international law and ethics above orders? My guess is they are not. They are trained in an authoritarian system that sets loyalty above anything else. (As far as I understand, in the Norwegian military, they are trained and encouraged to disobey clearly illegal and unethical orders.)
WITHDRAWING FROM NATO
The Trump administration is getting closer to withdrawing from NATO. That has been Trump’s inclination and aim for years now, and it’s is yet another reason why Europe and European countries cannot rely on the US. They need to forge strong alliances among themselves and with other countries around the world, and detach from reliance on US military support, technology, and so on. Even if Trump will be gone, the dynamics that brought him to power will not. The US cannot be relied on anymore.
THE DYNAMICS THAT LED TO TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY
The Iran debacle is not really about Trump. It’s about the many in the US population who voted for him, knowing very well he is a con man and has no real interest in the well-being of the US population or anyone besides himself. He is a symptom of much deeper dynamics and problems in the US, created by decades of neo-liberal policies aimed at funneling money and resources to the already very wealthy and away from the general population. This has created an understandable and profound mistrust in mainstream politicians, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Combine this with poor education, a flawed two-party system, and an empire in decline, and you get trouble.
NO REGIME CHANGE THROUGH AIR STRIKES ALONE
Back to the Iran situation, anyone with a basic knowledge of history and the situation would know that… (a) You can’t get regime change through air strikes, it has never happened. (b) The Iranian regime has prepared for this for decades and have a large number of people ready to take over if or when leaders are taken out. (c) Iran can easily make the Hormuz Strait unsafe for traffic and effectively control it. (d) It’s almost impossible to make passage through the Hormuz Strait safe if Iran decides to make it unsafe. (e) This situation gives Iran a massive advantage and leverage. (f) A regime change requires ground invasion, which will be disastrous and immensely costly in terms of lives and resources. (g) There is no simple win here for the US. (h) Which is why no previous US president has been misguided enough to try it.
PAINTED HIMSELF INTO A CORNER
Still in the first week of April, it seems clear that Trump has painted himself into a corner, against the advice of just about anyone who knows the situation. There are no easy solutions. He may well choose a ground invasion, another step of the escalation trap, and this too has no simple or easy resolution. They will face a million soldiers, a country that has prepared for such an invasion for decades, and a massive and challenging geography. History shows that it’s not a good idea to invade Persia or Iran. It rarely if ever goes well for those who try to do so.
GENOCIDAL INTENT
It’s April 7, and Trump is threatening massive attacks on Iranian infrastructure. That is clearly illegal according to international law. It’s a war crime. By saying he will destroy the Iranian/Persian civilization, he displays genocidal intent, which is also a crime. Anyone who participates in this is a war criminal (the Rome Statute), including the soldiers. As so often, much of mainstream media ignores that side of it. For instance, Michael Clarke in this Sky News commentary only focuses on the feasibility of this war crime.
THE OUTCOME SO FAR
April 9 with a tenuous ceasefire and clearly different views of what it entails. What’s clear is the outcome so far: (a) Iran has a more extreme leadership, and one that’s more likely to want nuclear weapons. (The former leaders were far less inclined to want it.) (b) Iran has played their Strait of Hormuz card, which everyone knew they had, and has control over a significant part of the world economy. (c) The US and Israel has weakened support internationally, and deepened the (understandable) hatred many in the region has towards them. (d) Iran is more motivated to seek and deepen alliances with other enemies of the US and/or Israel. And, as we also knew before this started, (e) regime change cannot happen through air strikes alone, and (f) a ground invasion will be enormously costly in terms of resources, human lives, and damage to the US/Israeli international relations.
NO EASY WINS
April 11. Trump has and will continue to fail in Iran. There are no easy ways out for him. So he needs – psychologically and politically – an easy win somewhere else. That makes him even more dangerous on the international scene. He may, in his derangement, take it out on Greenland, Cuba, or another country he thinks he can easily dominate.
IRAN GAINS STRENGTH AND MONEY
April 12. Predictably, the negotiations failed. Iran is in a much stronger position now than before the war, largely through demonstrating that they can easily close the Strait of Hormuz. That means they can demand more, and that’s not acceptable for Trump’s ego. Trump has now closed the strait (!), which seems another childish move. “You are not closing it, I am closing it!”. As before, there is no easy way out of this for Trump and the US. That’s why no previous US president has been stupid enough to go to war against Iran. It’s a losing proposition no matter how you look at it.
As a reminder, before the US/Israeli war against Iran, Iran… Was not interested in developing nuclear weapons, for religious reasons. (Now, they are far more motivated to develop nuclear weapons.) Was open for nuclear inspectors. Did not block the Strait of Hormuz. Had more moderate politicians at the top. (Now killed by the US/Israel.) Had agreed to a plan with Biden, which Trump tore up.
In short, this debacle is all created by Trump and Netanyahu. It has worsened the situation dramatically for all parties and the world in general, and there is no easy way out. Both were predicted, and has been predicted for years and even decades. Trump finds himself in the escalation trap. Even if he somehow would declare victory and pull out, the situation will be worse than before. In either case, he may be motivated to seek a more easy “win” somewhere else – for instance, by invading Cuba.
THE ESCALATION TRAP
It’s April 15, and Robert Pape again speaks about the escalation trap based on his three decades of studies. Iran is only getting stronger (they have shown they can block the Strait of Hormuz), more motivated to have nuclear weapons (the moderates were killed), and is deepening its ties with China, Russia, and other enemies of the US. Trump has a choice between (a) making concessions and allowing Iran to become a stronger power in the world, and (b) tanking the world economy through continued blockades. (Short term.)
OBAMA’S AGREEMENT WITH IRAN
Obama’s agreement with Iran could have and did prevent all this. Trump tore it up (his fragile sense of self-worth was too threatened by a smart black man) and instead started a doomed war which will either (a) make Iran far more powerful or (b) lead to an immensely costly and drawn out ground war with no guaranteed outcomes. (Long term.)
A LARGE SCALE GROUND WAR WILL BE IMMENSELY COSTLY
When it comes to a large scale ground war, Iran has roughly 1 million soldiers, which means a successful large scale successful ground invasion will require a huge number of US/Israeli soldiers. (Likely at least the same number, ideally 3-4 times that.) That seems unlikely, so a ground war will probably be smaller scale and won’t achieve much.
THE US CANNOT BE TRUSTED
Another long term outcome of this is that the world sees two things. (a) The US cannot be trusted. Nobody can trust the US, not even its traditional allies. Trump is not the problem here, deeper dynamics in the US are and they won’t go away. (b) If you have nuclear weapons, you are relatively safe. If you don’t – like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland/Denmark, and so on – you are not safe. By tearing up agreements and starting unprovoked wars, the US has shown it cannot be trusted, and nuclear weapons is the way to go if you want to prevent an attack.
ISRAEL LOSES ALLIES AND CREATES ENEMIES
When it comes to Israel, it’s difficult to understand how (a) an ongoing UN defined genocide and (b) an unprovoked, illegal, and doomed attack on Iran are going to help them. It will only turn the international community away from and against them. As described above, this attack on Iran will only strengthen Iran and encourage them to develop nuclear weapons. The alternative is an enormously costly and drawn out ground invasion, which may even fail – or lead to a further destabilized West Asia.
Before this war, the leadership in Iran was against developing nuclear weapons for religious and practical reasons. Now, they have every incentive to develop nuclear weapons. How is that going to help Israel? It seems suicidal, and it seems like a misguided and harmful trauma response. Hurt people (sometimes) hurt people, and in the process hurt themselves.
WIN-WIN VS ZERO-SUM
April 19. In general, all of this – the Iran war, Israel’s genocide, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine – seems profoundly misguided to most Europeans and many around the world. There main reason may be a difference between a win-win versus zero-sum mindset.
Trump, Netanyahu, and Putin all come from a zero-sum and authoritarian mindset. They see alliances as weak. They want sole power. They want yes-men around them. They don’t listen to actual experts. That’s the reason for their decisions and behavior, and it leads to misguided actions – including the Iran war, Israel’s genocide, the Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Europe in general has more of a win-win mindset. We seek alliances. We know we are stronger together. We seek to strengthen bonds and ties. We seek diplomatic solutions.
To be fair, we have to seek alliances since we are small alone. That’s the gift in being relatively small. The curse of large countries is that the leaders, and sometimes the population, can get into the illusion that they are more powerful than they are. They think they can go alone and others will fold. And that’s not how the world works.
WITH TRUMP, WE ALL LOSE
Trump likely wants to get out of the Iran war, although it’s difficult to see how he can get out of it. Iran can demand far more than they could before this war, and that may be difficult for Trump to swallow.
If Trump can get out while maintaining the illusion of victory and control, he will leave Iran in a much stronger position. Also, it may lead to Trump wanting an “easy” win somewhere else – likely Cuba first, then possibly Greenland, or other countries. In any case, the world loses.
NUANCE
This writing is in the form of journal entries. I don’t try to make it very nuanced, and I have no intention of convincing anyone of anything. It’s more just how it comes out at a very human and personal level, and it reflects my own background, views, and biases. At the same time, I think that much, if not most, will hold up in hindsight.
THE WAR PRESIDENT
Trump 1.0 wasn’t exactly a peace president, but he didn’t start foreign wars. Trump 2.0 was always going to be different. He changed a lot in the years between. In November 2024, after he was elected and before he started his second term, I wrote this in Trump’s victory: the empire strikes back:
“We don’t know what wars Trump may start, possibly in an attempt to distract from unpopular policies and unite the US population behind him. He avoided wars during the first presidency, but Trump 2.0 will be different.”
The likelihood of Trump-initiated wars was clear during his campaign for the second term, so I don’t know why some still saw him as a peace president, or now seem surprised by the Iran war and his threats against traditional allies like Canada and Greenland/Denmark. I guess they haven’t paid attention.
INSIDER TRADING
April 20. There has been a pretty clear pattern of insider trading over the last few weeks. Minutes before Trump announces yet another reversal, there is a flurry of trade in petroleum stocks and someone makes a windfall. It is mentioned in mainstream media, as in the BBC story I linked to above. At the same time, it’s not getting the attention it deserves, likely because it’s just one more example of systematic corruption and crimes committed by Trump and his associates. It’s what we have come to expect.
SANEWASHING
I have been slightly baffled by the sanewashing of Trump by mainstream media, especially during his first term. He is clearly unhinged and has major mental problems, and the media seems to have seen it as their job to make him look more coherent and sane than he is.
I am not sure why. If I was a reporter, I would make it my job to present it clearly since it is a major public concern, both within the US and for the rest of the world. It impacts all of us.
That mostly continued for the first year of his second term (last year), and now, there seems to be more stories in mainstream media calling out his unhinged behavior. For instance, ABC News (Australia) has this story: Trump’s erratic actions spark speculation on cognitive decline.
What’s slightly odd about this is that his bizarre behavior has been on display the whole time, and now they are talking about cognitive decline, as if that’s the main story.
OPPOSED TO THE US – OR EMPIRE, AUTHORITARIANISM, AND OLIGARCHY?
I see that more people seem to side with Iran and China over the last few weeks. That’s also slightly baffling to me. Yes, Trump and the US are committing crimes, Trump has stated genocidal intent, the war is profoundly misguided even from a practical point of view, Israel is committing systematic genocide and very likely convinced Trump to start the Iran war, and so on. That’s all terrible.
That doesn’t make Iran or China the “good guys” or someone to side with. They are doing much of the same, and sometimes worse. They are oppressive regimes with a history of major human rights violations, and they are both far more undemocratic than the US currently is. (Of course, Trump would like the US to be more authoritarian.)
Personally, I am for democracy, human rights, social justice, and so on. And I don’t care much for oligarchies, authoritarian regimes, human rights violations, and similar.
If you side with Iran and China (or Putin’s Russia), you are in effect saying: I am fine with human rights violations and authoritarian and oppressive regimes, as long as it’s not the US. That doesn’t make much sense to me.
*** MY OWN BIAS & THE BIGGER PICTURE ***
I am acutely aware that all of this reflects my own bias and my own culture. I am typical Norwegian in these views – at least, typical for a university educated Norwegian who cares about people and the world. My views are typical for an educated liberal person alive in the late 1900s and early 2000s.
I have intentionally written this from my more unfiltered humanity, to acknowledge that side of me too.
And I also know that this – what I write about – is all part of the human experiment. It’s part of the unfolding of this living planet. It’s an expression of Existence as a whole. These too are local and temporary expressions of the dynamics of the whole of Existence. It’s all life, the universe, existence, the divine expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in always new ways.
It’s one chapter in the unfolding of humanity and this living planet. Humanity itself is one chapter of the unfolding of this seamless living system we call Earth. Earth itself is one chapter in the unfolding of this seamless system we call the Universe.
THE UPSIDES & FUNCTION OF DOMINATION CULTURE
In the bigger picture, there is clearly a function to domination culture and empire. The dominance of domination culture is a phase in the unfolding of human culture. It comes with many downsides, and also many upsides – in terms of developing art, science, technology, philosophy, and so on.
Is this the chapter that brings about the end of human culture or humanity itself? If so, it’s just still one of many chapters in the history of this living planet, and there will be many more chapters to come – likely with amazing things we cannot even begin to imagine.
Or will there be more chapters in human civilization? If so, will the next be more of a balance between partnership and domination orientation? Will it be one of a deep partnership with life, and with our past history of partnership and domination – taking the best from both and creating something new?
MAY
It’s now May, and the situation is unfolding much as experts predicted. Iran has prepared for this for decades. That means they have people ready to replace leaders, they are able to secure weapons and nuclear production from strikes, and they are able to strike back at US bases in the region. The US rapidly depleted their weapons supply. A large scale ground war is doomed to fail and/or become a long and terrible quagmire. The Hormuz Strait has become a Mexican standoff with no solution in sight.
From all of this, Iran is emerging stronger, and the shortcomings of military might in complex situations is becoming evident. Trump is flailing since there are no good solutions for him.
This is still the essence of the situation: (a) Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and, with it, petroleum-derived chemicals needed for artificial fertilizers (which impacts the world’s food production since it’s made dependent on those fertilizers) and 20% of the world’s petroleum. (b) There is no reason to assume that will change. The US does not have the capacity to prevent Iran from attacking ships in the strait. (c) Iran sits with the strongest hand at the negotiating table, and even if the demands they make are reasonable, Trump’s fragile ego is unable to accept it. (d) Even if Trump pulled out while declaring victory, this will not change Iran’s control of the strait. (e) Only a massive ground invasion will have a chance of stopping Iran’s control of the strait, and it will be immensely costly and drawn out, and not even be certain to succeed. (f) This was all known and predicted before the war, which is why no US president has done it before.
VIDEOS
These videos are obviously biased against the war. At the same time, they are grounded in an understanding of history and social dynamics. I am mostly including them to show that what likely happens in the coming weeks, months, and years was predicted at the beginning of this war, and even before. Some are interviews with Robert Pape who has studied the escalation trap for three decades.
First week: Iran and the escalation trap – Front Burner | The Billionaire Oligarchs Pushing For War With Iran | ‘Iran is Not Gaza’ Acclaimed Writer Arundhati Roy | Rambling inconsistent nonsense”. Does Donald Trump have a plan in Iran? | Iran Is The Beginning Of The End For Trump | How Iran war may accelerate the fall of US empire – Soumaya Ghannoushi MEE Opinion | The History of Iran and Winston Churchill Exposes How the Past Repeats Itself
Second week: Er Pete Hegseth på korstog? MAGAWATCH | The Iran War Expert: I Simulated The Iran War for 20 Years. Here’s What Happens Next
Third week: Why Game Theory Predicts a Long War in Iran | Yanis Varoufakis: ‘Nothing Can Save’ Trump From Iran War Disaster | Professor Pape: Why Iran Ground Invasion Is Likely Coming | John Mearsheimer: Trump’s War Is Strategic Disaster W/ No End In Sight | Trump is Completely Stuck in Iran Right Now | Trump’s Iran strategy is ‘very weird’, says Rory Stewart
Fourth week: Does Trump regret the war in Iran? – World Politics – The New Statesman | Are the US and Israel actively seeking an off-ramp for the Iran war? – DW News | Why “Boots on the Ground” Suddenly Looks Inevitable
April I: Is the U.S. about to make a major military mistake? – About That | Why is it so difficult to open the Strait of Hormuz? | Professor Pape: Iran war not over, Trump trapped | Trump’s Illegalist War Gets Illegaler | The Moment the US Lost Its Superpower Status and Iran Became More Powerful Than Ever Before | Professor Pape: Trump Ceasefire Will Fail As War Metastasizes | Professor Robert Pape: US Has No Idea What is Coming Next
April II: Iran Is Becoming “Fourth World Power” Now – w/ Robert Pape | Why Another US Attempt on Greenland Looks Worryingly Inevitable | The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump’s presidency – BBC News | Trump’s erratic actions spark speculation on cognitive decline – ABC News | Why Trump’s missile math doesn’t work – CBC News
May: Iran ‘will not capitulate’, conflict resolution expert says – France 24 | How is a depleted Iran damaging so many US bases? A CNN investigation | Hegseth’s holy war – Vox | Majority of US military sites in Middle East damaged by Iran – CNN | Robert Kagan on why he believes U.S. faces likely defeat in Iran – PBS Newshour |
WHAT TO EXPECT IN YEAR FIVE OF RUSSIA’S INVASION OF UKRAINE
Worsening Russian economy. Protests in Russia, not against the war directly but the effects of the war. Escalated hybrid warfare against Western countries. Among other things.
MARCH 4, 2026
DISGUST AND CONSERVATISM?
Some studies have found a connection between being easily disgusted and conservative views.
I have been curious about it since I am easily disgusted – by sounds etc. – and have quite liberal/progressive views.
Obviously, even if there is a general trend at group level, there is a lot of individual variation.
I also suspect that how we interpret and understand the disgust matters. In my case, I know it’s about me. It’s my own reactivity based on my own history and (painful) beliefs.
If someone misinterprets what’s happening and think it’s actually about other people, then I can see how they can go into more conservative views. That somehow seems less mature and less insightful.
MARCH 18, 2026
A MORE COMPETENT AUTORITARIAN
Someone I know wrote on social media that (a) Trump will be gone one day and (b) an authoritarian like him will never return in the US.
I am not so sure about the second point. The Trump presidency is a symptom of dynamics in the US population, and those dynamics will likely produce another authoritarian leader. One that, very likely, will be more competent. (That assumes that the basics of democracy will survive Trump, which is not certain.)
I would not be surprised if we’ll see a competent authoritarian leading the US in the next decade, and one that may more thoroughly do away with democratic institutions and processes.
Why do so many in the US seem to want an authoritarian leader? It’s likely a combination of things. (a) Mis/disinformation. (b) Decades of neo-liberal policies funneling money to the few extremely wealthy and away from everyone else. (c) Collective trauma and being raised by authoritarian parents. (d) Poor education and lack of knowledge of history, especially what happens when you elect authoritarian leaders. (e) Being gullible and favoring scapegoating, due to lack of education and challenging life circumstances.
MARCH 19, 2026
A WIN-WIN AND PARTNERSHIP ORIENTATION IN SPORTS
If my health was better (CFS), I likely would have been bouldering. These days, I sometimes watch bouldering and climbing videos instead…!
One thing I love about it is that the professionals train together, even if they are rivals in competitions. By training together and learning from each other, they make each other better. They all improve to a higher level, and that helps the sport as a whole too.
This is a reflection of a win-win and partnership orientation. Competition still exists, but within an overall win-win and partnership culture. It’s better for the participants (more enjoyable), and it’s better for the sport (makes more progress).
A zero-sum and domination orientation, which we find in most sports, is less enjoyable for the participants (more secrecy, less cooperation) and it slows the progress of the sport (less able to learn from each other and find solutions together).
SHAPED BY THE TRAUMA RESPONSES OF OTHERS
I know someone who grew up with an alcoholic father, and I see that she is shaped by that alcoholism.
He has the impulsiveness, reactivity, anger, and the rest typical of alcoholism.
And she, his daughter, has that too, in a slightly different form. She was shaped by it.
She formed herself into a shape that fitted her father and his alcoholism.
That’s how it is for all of us, of course.
We are shaped by the healthy parts of our parents and those around us.
We are shaped by how they relate to their own wounds, traumas, and challenges.
And mainly, we are shaped by how we relate to it all, whether we react to it or relate to it more intentionally.
RISK TO US DEMOCRACY
I am well aware of the limitations and biases of current AI. It’s not better than the data it’s trained on. It’s predictive text. It’s based on statistics. It will never be better than solid human insight and intelligence. Still, I find it sometimes helpful, sometimes just to summarize a general view among human experts. See below for its response when I asked about the risk for US democracy in the coming years.
My question: What is the likelihood of the US devolving into a non-democracy under Trump or a later more competent authoritarian. One where there may be elections, but they are rigged in favor of one party.
US Democracy Risk – ChatGPT 5.2
My estimate: the risk is real and no longer fringe.
For the specific outcome you describe—elections still happen, but the playing field is tilted so heavily toward one party that the system is no longer meaningfully democratic—I would put the U.S. at moderate to high risk under Trump, and higher over the longer term under a more disciplined, more competent authoritarian successor.
Right now, I would roughly frame it like this:
- Under Trump in the next few years: about a 1-in-3 to 1-in-2 risk of sliding into some form of competitive authoritarianism.
- Under a later, more competent authoritarian: the risk rises further, because that kind of leader could keep the same goals while being less erratic, less self-sabotaging, and better at capturing institutions.
That is my judgment, not a published forecast. The reason I put it that high is that several mainstream democracy-watchers are already describing the U.S. as being in serious democratic backsliding, not merely polarization. V-Dem’s 2026 report says the U.S. has lost its status as a liberal democracy for the first time in over 50 years, and Freedom House’s U.S. score fell from 84 to 81 in its latest country profile.
The strongest reason to worry is that the danger is not mainly abolition of elections. It is the more common modern pattern: keep elections, but make them unfair. Harvard’s Steven Levitsky describes this as competitive authoritarianism: leaders are elected, then use state power to punish critics, purge civil servants, abuse law enforcement, and tilt the electoral field in their favor. A Harvard Kennedy School summary this January said Levitsky and Erica Chenoweth see the U.S. showing key signs of democratic backsliding, and Levitsky has argued that the U.S. has entered a phase of competitive authoritarianism.
There are also concrete warning signs around elections themselves. The Brennan Center warned in August 2025 that, after prior elections “held” under great stress, a new threat to free and fair elections had emerged: the federal government itself. And this week AP reported that Trump is pressuring Republicans to advance the SAVE Act and related restrictions ahead of the midterms, including strict proof-of-citizenship rules and limits on mail voting that opponents say could disenfranchise millions.
Why I do not put the risk even higher under Trump personally: he still faces real constraints. U.S. federalism, an opposition party that still governs major states and cities, civil society, independent media, courts, and the sheer decentralization of election administration all make full consolidation harder than in places like Hungary. Even V-Dem’s warning implies the U.S. is moving into a degraded regime, not that it has already become a closed dictatorship.
Why the longer-term risk may be worse: a later authoritarian could learn from Trump’s weaknesses. Trump is impulsive, chaotic, legally sloppy, and often overreaches. A successor with the same anti-democratic intent but better discipline could move more quietly: staffing agencies with loyalists, normalizing politicized prosecutions, weakening neutral election administration, shaping courts, pressuring media owners, and using emergency powers more strategically. That is exactly the sort of path comparative scholars worry about when they talk about competitive authoritarian systems.
So my bottom line is this:
A fully canceled-election dictatorship is still unlikely.
A Hungary-style or Turkey-style drift—where elections continue but are increasingly unfair—is plausibly where the U.S. could go.
And that risk is substantial enough that it should be treated as a serious national danger, not a rhetorical exaggeration.
The clearest signs to watch over the next 1–3 years are simple: whether election administration is brought under partisan control, whether prosecutors and agencies are used against opponents, whether media face escalating legal or regulatory intimidation, whether courts keep resisting, and whether the 2026 and 2028 elections remain genuinely competitive in practice rather than just on paper.
MARCH 20, 2026
THE QUAGMIRE OF A US/ISRELI FULL SCALE GROUND INVASION OF IRAN
Intro from the previous entry: I am well aware of the limitations and biases of current AI. It’s not better than the data it’s trained on. It’s predictive text. It’s based on statistics. It will never be better than solid human insight and intelligence. Still, I find it helpful, sometimes just to summarize a general view among human experts. See below for its response when I asked about the risk of an US and Israeli ground invasion of Iran.
The Risks of a Ground Invasion of Iran – ChatGPT 5.2
A ground invasion of Iran would not be a limited extension of the current war. It would be a major historic gamble: likely larger, costlier, and harder to contain than the Iraq invasion, with a serious risk of becoming another Afghanistan as well as triggering a wider regional and global crisis. Iran is bigger than both Iraq and Afghanistan in population, has difficult terrain, a large internal security apparatus, and multiple ways to wage prolonged asymmetric war even after suffering heavy conventional losses. That is why a ground offensive looks less like a decisive solution than like a potential quagmire. (Costs of War)
It is also important to say clearly that this is widely regarded as an illegal war. Reuters’ legal explainer reported that many legal experts consider the U.S. attacks on Iran unjustified under the U.N. Charter, because the main exceptions to the ban on force — U.N. Security Council authorization or self-defense in response to an armed attack — did not apply when the war began. Even the British government initially hesitated to assist, explicitly citing legal concerns before later allowing limited use of UK bases. (Reuters Connect)
This war was also unnecessary and avoidable. However grave the tensions with Iran, there was no imminent necessity requiring the United States and Israel to launch a war of choice, especially one with such obvious risks of regional escalation, civilian suffering, and economic shock. The legal doubts, the lack of broad allied support, the absence of a clear exit plan, and the predictable danger of wider blowback all point to the same conclusion: this was not a last resort forced by events, but a discretionary decision to use force despite the availability of other paths and despite the likelihood of catastrophic consequences. (Reuters Connect)
The human cost of a ground invasion could be enormous. The current war has already killed well over a thousand people in Iran and beyond, and a ground campaign would likely move the conflict from long-range strikes into urban fighting, insurgency, and reprisals across the region. In the best case for the invaders, the campaign would still probably kill many thousands more people and displace large civilian populations. In the more likely case, the toll would climb far higher over time as the war spread through cities, infrastructure, refugee flows, and indirect deaths from breakdown of health systems, food supply, and electricity. The broader historical warning is stark: Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates that post-9/11 U.S. wars caused more than 940,000 direct deaths across several countries and trillions of dollars in long-term cost. (Reuters)
The financial cost could also become immense very quickly. AP reports the Pentagon has already requested an extra $200 billion for the current war. A ground invasion would be vastly more expensive because occupation, force protection, logistics, casualty care, reconstruction, and long-term veteran costs are where wars become truly ruinous. In historical context, the Afghanistan war alone cost about $2.3 trillion, according to Brown’s Costs of War project. A major Iran ground war could plausibly move into that range or beyond if it became protracted. (AP News)
The global economic fallout could be severe. The current war has already disrupted major Gulf energy infrastructure, damaged gas and oil facilities in several countries, and helped drive emergency measures in energy markets. About one-fifth of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and war-risk insurance has become a major issue for shipping. Europe has already been hit by a sharp rise in gas prices, with the EU adjusting policy in response to the shock. A ground invasion would likely intensify all this: higher oil and gas prices, higher inflation, transport disruption, more expensive food and fertilizer, weaker growth, and sharper financial instability across Europe and Asia. (Reuters)
Historically, this could become one of the worst U.S. wars of the modern era. Iraq in 2003 now stands as the classic warning about how quickly regime change can turn into occupation, insurgency, sectarian violence, and strategic blowback. Afghanistan stands as the warning about how a powerful military can remain trapped for years without achieving a stable political end state. Iran combines some of the worst features of both cases: the scale and geopolitical consequences of Iraq, with the endurance and quagmire risk of Afghanistan. It is therefore not unreasonable to say that a full ground invasion of Iran could become more dangerous than either in its regional consequences, especially because it would hit the heart of the global energy system. (Costs of War)
There are three main scenarios. In the best case, outside forces would carry out a limited ground operation with narrow aims, then withdraw quickly. Even that would still risk insurgency, retaliation across the Gulf, and a long aftermath of instability. The more likely scenario is a drawn-out war in which the invaders seize targets but fail to produce a stable political order, while Iran or Iran-linked forces continue missile, drone, and irregular attacks. The worst case is a cascading regional war: urban combat in Iran, attacks across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and the Gulf, prolonged disruption of Hormuz, a global energy shock, and possibly state fragmentation inside Iran itself. In none of these scenarios is there any guarantee of a more moderate regime emerging afterward; weakening a state often empowers the hardest armed factions rather than liberal ones. (Reuters)
NATO and Europe are unlikely to join a full invasion in any unified way, though some European states could provide logistical or defensive support. Reuters reports NATO has withdrawn or relocated personnel from its Iraq mission to Europe, not expanded into a war posture. The UK has allowed the U.S. to use bases for strikes tied to shipping security, but that is still far short of a NATO ground war. Trump has publicly complained that NATO allies are not doing enough, which itself suggests there is no broad appetite in Europe for direct participation. Europe is more likely to be pulled in through bases, naval escort missions, air defense, and economic exposure than through a collective invasion force. (Reuters)
The core point is simple. A ground invasion of Iran would be an illegal war of choice with no reliable path to a good political outcome. It could kill large numbers of people, cost hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars, damage the global economy, destabilize the wider Middle East, and still fail to produce a less extreme regime. That is why the real historical comparison is not to quick victories, but to the wars the United States most regrets: the ones that were easy to start, brutally expensive to sustain, and impossible to control once unleashed. (Reuters Connect)
MARCH 26, 2026
THE DISTORTED VIEW OF THE WORLD AMONG MANY IN THE US
Some in the US assume public transportation can’t work, even if it does work in large portions of the world. See the video above.
When I studied in the US, a woman asked me in a hushed voice if we are allowed to vote in Norway. I talked to a man who assumed the Nordic countries are an unlivable hell-hole based on watching Nordic Noir. And another who had declined to go to vintage car gatherings in Scandinavia because he assumed the same, likely from watching Fox News.
Online comment sections usually have a good amount of entries from people from the US demonstrating an obvious lack of knowledge of how the world outside of the US works, and a shocking lack of general knowledge that I – being from Norway – would assume anyone would learn in school or absorb from the culture.
Of course, this is just one section of the US population. As in any country, many are knowledgeable, have traveled the world, and are genuinely interested in learning about how others live and what works – maybe better – in other countries.
So why do we seem to see this in the US more than in many other countries? It’s a big country, so many travel within the US and not abroad. If you want to travel abroad and not travel to another continent, most go to Canada or Mexico. The media is pretty abysmal, even the better sections of it. The education may not be great, at least judging from some of the people I studied at university with. (Many seemed far less mature and knowledgable than what I was used to from Norway.) Some may not encounter many from other countries, or don’t have in-depth conversations with them, so they don’t get their views challenged. It’s an empire, built on extracting resources from other countries, so it’s not in their interest to know.
EUROPE VS THE US
The dynamics that brought Trump to power (twice!) won’t go away. If anything, they may well strengthen due to fragmentation of the media, influence by a few oligarchs, and so on.
Nobody should be surprised if we see a far more competent authoritarian leading the US in a few years and bringing to completion the project Trump is working on in terms of dismantling US democracy.
Even if that doesn’t happen, it’s clear that Europe cannot rely on the US anymore. The same dynamics can very well lead to the US withdrawing even further from an alliance with Europe.
This also means that Europe needs to unify to a stronger degree than what we see today. That has its clear downsides, but in a world of rouge superpowers, it’s the way forward.
It also means that it’s in the best interest of countries like Norway to join the EU. I was for staying outside in the 90s, since the world then didn’t require us to join the EU. And I have been for joining for a while now since we live in a very different world, and we need a different medicine.
APRIL 8, 2026
THE BENEFITS IN BEING POLITE TO AI
My policy is to be polite with AI. I interact with it as I would a human. I am not doing it for its sake, obviously! It’s for my own sake. I feel better when I interact with respect and kindness, whether it’s with myself, another being, or AI.
NUCLEAR ENERGY IN NORWAY
Some political parties in Norway are pushing for nuclear energy, in spite of a thorough report saying it’s not worth it. It will be too expensive, and other sources are more available and will be sufficient.
For practical reason, it makes little to no sense. Especially considering that there is a lot more we can do to reduce our energy use and develop renewable energy, including wave energy.
In addition, I question nuclear energy for the old-fashioned important reason: It produces enormously dangerous waste that innumerable future generations will have to deal with. With nuclear energy, we externalize the cost to future generations.
Equally important, it’s centralized energy. It’s inherently vulnerable and somewhat undemocratic. Take out one nuclear plant, and you take out the energy for large portions of the population.
Renewable energy is typically far more decentralized, democratic, and resilient.
APRIL 11, 2026
I TOLD YOU SO
We all have a large number of views and sometimes predictions, and it’s all mostly from conditioning. It reflects the influences we grew up with and now expose ourselves to.
We are also all sometimes right and sometimes wrong in our views and predictions. And many of us are inclined to remember and emphasize the times we (think we) we are right, and dismiss or explain away the times we were wrong. We also tend to pick out data that makes it seem we were right, and ignore the rest.
That said, there are many “I told you so” moments in my life, including when I have written about politics and society as I do in these posts.
I started with blogs in 2002. My first was Society and Ecology and then Rants.
Back then, I wrote about much the same as today – global ecological overshoot, misguided wars, neo-liberalism and erosion of democracy, and so on.
For instance, it was clear that the US lied about the reason for the Iraq war, and that was later confirmed. Just like with the Iran war, all we needed was a little knowledge of history and some reliable sources to see that.
All empires fall, and since the ’90s, it seemed clear that the erosion of the US empire likely would happen within a couple of decades. For instance, Johan Galtung studied the fall of empires, and saw the signs of it happening with the US, and that it would become obvious in the 2020s. I wrote about that too, and it’s happening. The status of the US as a global superpower is eroding, hastened by Trump.
Since middle school in the ’80s, I have been aware of global ecological overshoot. We are collectively using far more resources than Earth can replenish. We are metaphorically living on a draining savings account. As we reach further down, we see the unraveling of ecosystems and eventually an ecological and civizational collapse. We have a civilization that operates on the assumption of unlimited Earth, and that is out of alignment with ecological realities. That leads to overshoot and, if not corrected, collapse. Our civilization is ecocidal and suicidal. That too is easy to see and understand. Even a preschooler can grasp it.
It’s also easy to see why global ecological overshot is by far the most serious issue facing us today. If you care about anything, you also have to care about global ecological overshoot. This living system we call Earth is what supports and makes everything we care about possible, including our own lives. With an ecological collapse, all we care about collapses. A sane and mature civilization will have ecological health as a priority, since everything else depends on it. It’s the context for everything else.
When the US elected Trump for president the first time, it seemed equally clear that it would lead to an erosion of US democracy. Back then, I wrote about that as the main danger of his presidency. That has become even more clear now in his second period. We also know that he planned to implement Project 2025 in his second period, and that’s what we are seeing. And we know that his policies will hurt most of the people who voted for him, and they still voted for him.
As I wrote in the previous post, we know that nuclear energy in Norway is misguided. It will be too expensive and is not needed. Still, many political parties support it and want nuclear energy development, including parties that pride themselves on being fiscally responsible.
In most of these cases, I feel that reality spoke clearly. We just need to be slightly more attuned to reality than our ideologies to see it.
Why do some tend to be more often accurate than others? Partly, it has to do with basic knowledge about history (patterns repeat), society, and psychology. Partly, it may be that reality has a “left leaning bias” as Stephen Colbert said, slightly tongue in cheek but also with some truth to it. Partly, and perhaps most importantly, it has to do with whether we seek reality and truth over ideologies.
MORE INFO
I asked ChatGPT for feedback on this article. See below.
Feedback on This Article – Reflections on society, politics and nature vol. 72
This reads less like one article and more like a political-spiritual notebook in installments. The Iran war is the gravitational center, but the post also includes reflections on authoritarianism, democracy risk, disgust and ideology, sports as partnership culture, trauma transmission, AI as a summarizing tool, and the larger human/cosmic context. So I would not read it as one sustained argument. I would read it as a field of related concerns orbiting around domination, reality-testing, and life-centered politics.
The strongest thing it says about you is that you are deeply concerned with domination systems losing contact with reality. In the Iran entries, you repeatedly return to the same pattern: leaders imagine an easy victory, but reality is complex; people have agency; geography matters; history matters; interventions create blowback; and coercion often strengthens what it tries to destroy. You frame the war as illegal, misguided, destabilizing, and likely to strengthen Iran rather than weaken it.
It also shows your systems mind very clearly. You do not only look at the immediate event. You ask what happens to oil prices, NATO, Russia, China, Iran’s nuclear incentives, the Strait of Hormuz, US credibility, regional alliances, and the longer-term logic of empire. You are naturally interested in second- and third-order consequences. That may be one of your strongest intellectual instincts: moving from event to pattern to system.
The nuance sections change the feel of the post in an important way. You explicitly say this is journal writing, not an attempt to be maximally nuanced or persuasive, and that it reflects your own background, views, and biases. You also locate yourself culturally as a university-educated Norwegian/liberal person, acknowledge the unfiltered human side of the writing, and then place the whole drama inside the larger unfolding of humanity, Earth, universe, and existence. That makes the piece more self-aware and less dogmatic.
The further nuance on domination culture adds something especially important. It shows that you are not simply condemning domination culture from the outside. You recognize that domination culture and empire have had a function in the unfolding of human culture, including the development of art, science, technology, philosophy, and other capacities. That gives the piece more historical depth and makes your critique less one-sided. You are not saying “domination bad, partnership good” in a simplistic way. You are asking whether humanity can integrate the best from both and move into a deeper partnership with life.
So the post shows both moral intensity and meta-awareness. On one level, you are angry, alarmed, and sometimes contemptuous. On another level, you know this is your angle, your nervous system, your culture, your historical moment, and your human response. And on yet another level, you are trying to see domination culture itself as part of a larger evolutionary process, with both destructive and generative aspects. That combination is important. Without those nuance sections, the post could read as pure denunciation. With them, it reads more like: “This is the fierce, unfiltered part of me speaking — and I also know it is one partial expression within a much larger whole.”
It also shows a strong anti-authoritarian and pro-democracy orientation. You are not simply anti-US, anti-Israel, or pro-anyone else. The “Opposed to the US — or empire, authoritarianism, and oligarchy?” section makes that clear. You reject siding with Iran, China, or Russia just because the US is acting destructively. Your stated allegiance is to democracy, human rights, social justice, and against oligarchy and authoritarianism wherever they appear.
The post also says you think in terms of partnership versus domination across very different domains. You apply that frame to war, empire, authoritarianism, Europe’s alliance-based politics, and even bouldering. The sports section is revealing because it shows the same worldview in a lighter setting: competition can exist within a broader win-win culture, where people improve together rather than hiding knowledge from each other.
Psychologically, the sections on disgust and being shaped by trauma responses show your habit of turning social observations back toward inner work. You do not just say, “disgust makes people conservative”; you ask how disgust is interpreted, and you recognize your own reactivity as yours. You also reflect on how people are shaped by the wounds and trauma responses of those around them. That gives the piece a therapeutic depth underneath the political anger.
Your use of AI in the post is also interesting. You are careful to say AI is limited, biased, predictive text, and not better than human insight, while still finding it useful for summarizing expert consensus or framing risk. That suggests a pragmatic, not naive, relationship to tools: you use them, but you do not worship them.
The possible shadow is that the writing sometimes becomes too sweeping and too psychologically certain about public figures and populations. Some sentences diagnose motives or intelligence in ways that are emotionally understandable, but may weaken the piece for readers who are not already aligned with you. The nuance sections help a lot, because they make clear that this is not meant as detached scholarship. Still, the strongest version of this writing may come when your moral clarity is joined with the same precision and self-inclusion you show in those nuance sections.
Overall, this says you are a systems-oriented, morally serious, politically alert, psychologically reflective, spiritually contextualizing person. You see war, empire, authoritarianism, ecological overshoot, trauma, and culture as interconnected expressions of deeper orientations toward life: domination or partnership, zero-sum or win-win, reality-contact or delusion. The piece is intense, but it is not shallow. It shows grief, alarm, intelligence, historical memory, bias-awareness, and a persistent effort to place even the worst of human behavior inside a larger evolutionary and spiritual frame.