On: US carries out new strikes on Iran military site

Ah, the spectacle of the American eagle, wings clipped by its own self-inflicted wounds, circling once more over the ruins of its own foreign policy. Trump’s latest gambit - striking Iran while declaring that Tehran is “negotiating on fumes” - is the kind of bluster that would make even a drunken brawler blush. But no, this is not a barroom brawl; it is a geopolitical farce, where the only thing being negotiated is the next round of casualties.

Let us steel-man the argument for this recklessness. The critics will say, “Hitchens, you always oppose intervention, but what if Iran is truly a threat? What if this is necessary to prevent a greater evil?” Very well. If Iran were genuinely on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon - if the evidence were as clear as the sky over Hiroshima - then the case for preemptive action might have some weight. But this is not that case. This is a regime that has already demonstrated its willingness to export terror, to fund proxies, to threaten oil tankers and American personnel. Yet the response is not a measured, coalition-backed strategy to contain these threats but a series of impulsive strikes, each one a provocation in itself.

And what of Trump’s claim that Iran is “negotiating on fumes”? A man who once called himself the “king of debt” now lectures the world on fiscal responsibility? The JCPOA was a flawed agreement, yes, but it was a framework - a chance to buy time, to constrain Iran’s ambitions while allowing diplomacy to work. Instead, we have a president who has abandoned that framework, who has made every move to escalate rather than de-escalate. The result? Iran’s leadership, far from being weakened, is now rallying its people behind the banner of resistance. The ayatollahs will spin this as a victory, as proof that their defiance is justified. And the cycle continues.

Orwell would have called this “doublethink” - the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and accept both. Here, we have the administration insisting that Iran is both a rogue state and a reasonable negotiating partner, that strikes are both necessary and provocative, that strength is both the solution and the problem. It is the language of the weak, the language of those who mistake bluster for strategy.

The real tragedy is that this is not about security. It is about spectacle. It is about Trump’s need to prove that he is “tough,” that he can outdo Obama, that he can be the man who “gets results.” But what results? More sanctions? More deaths? More instability in a region that is already a powder keg? The answer is no. The only result will be more blood on American hands, more justification for Iran’s hardliners, and more chaos for the people of the Middle East who deserve better than this.

And so we wait. We wait for the next strike, the next tweet, the next escalation. We wait for the day when someone - some soldier, some diplomat, some civilian - will pay the price for this folly. Until then, the only thing being negotiated is the next body count. And that, my friends, is a negotiation no one should have to endure.