Transcript:White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sparked a frenzy on Sunday after making a startling admission as to President Donald Trump’s plans for the ongoing U.S.-Israel military siege on Iran.“Mothers out there are worried that we’re going to have a draft, that they’re going to see their sons and daughters get involved in this,” said Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, speaking with Leavitt Sunday. “What do you want to say about the president’s plans for troops on the ground? As we know, it’s been largely an air campaign up until now.”In a stunning admission, Leavitt told Bartiromo that mandatory conscription – not seen since the Vietnam War – had not been ruled out by her boss.“It has been, and it will continue to be, and President Trump wisely does not remove options off of the table,” Leavitt said. “I know a lot of politicians like to do that quickly, but the president, as commander in chief, wants to continue to assess the success of this military operation. It’s not part of the current plan right now, but the president, again, wisely keeps his options on the table.”Leavitt’s remarks sent immediate shockwaves among critics, many of whom took her comments as a sign that conscription was imminent.“Karoline Leavitt refuses to rule out INITIATING A DRAFT to send Americans to fight in Iran!” wrote the progressive political activism organization Call to Activism Sunday in a social media post on X to their more than 1.2 million followers. “Translation: they won’t even promise your kids aren’t next.”Mats Nilsson, a geopolitical commentator and author, suggested that a draft would tank the Republican Party’s future political prospects even further, with the GOP already on track for a difficult uphill battle in the upcoming midterm elections.“Karoline Leavitt refusing to rule out a Draft,” Nilsson wrote Sunday in a social media post on X. “Once the Congressman's and Ivy League parent's children get drafted it'll be a whole other ballgame.”And X user “AnatolijUkraine,” a purported Ukrainian-born political commentator, bluntly called Leavitt’s admission “unbelievable.”“They may not be saying the word ‘draft’ out loud, but when they refuse to rule out sending Americans into Iran and keep insisting every option stays on the table, the message is clear enough: your kids are part of the gamble now,” they wrote Sunday in a social media post on X.Our Analysis:Drafting Desperation: The Trump Administration's Dangerous GambitIn a move that should shock no one but nonetheless sends chills down the spine, the White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, has laid bare the Trump administration's reckless approach to foreign policy and potential human cost with a startling admission. During a conversation with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, Leavitt refused to take mandatory conscription off the table in the context of the U.S.-Israel military siege on Iran. This revelation is not just a policy position; it's a blaring alarm for every American family.The Return of the Draft?Let's dissect the gravity of Leavitt's words: "It has been, and it will continue to be, and President Trump wisely does not remove options off of the table." The use of the word "wisely" here is, at best, a grotesque mischaracterization. There is nothing wise about leaving American families in a state of anxiety over the potential drafting of their sons and daughters into a military conflict that has, so far, been pursued with questionable strategic clarity.This isn't a display of strategic patience or a masterstroke of military planning. It's an admission of desperation. The refusal to rule out conscription reflects a dangerous gamble with American lives, one that could have severe repercussions not just on the battlefield but at home, in the very fabric of American society.The Shockwaves of Leavitt's AdmissionThe reaction was swift and unforgiving. Progressive political activism organization Call to Activism and geopolitical commentator Mats Nilsson underscore the immediate and palpable fear that such an admission stirs. The message is clear: the Trump administration is willing to risk American lives, potentially in large numbers, without a clear commitment to avoiding the draft.Nilsson's point on the draft tanking the GOP's future political prospects highlights a broader issue: the potential for a seismic shift in political landscapes. The draft, if initiated, would not just be a military action but a political earthquake, affecting families across the socio-economic spectrum, including those of Congressmen and Ivy League parents. The backlash could reshape American politics for generations.The Unbelievable GambitThe comment from "AnatolijUkraine" strikes at the heart of the issue. This isn't about the word 'draft' not being spoken aloud. It's about the implicit threat that hangs over every American family: your loved ones are now pawns in a geopolitical game, expendable in the pursuit of undefined objectives.Conclusion: A Reckless Roll of the DiceKaroline Leavitt's comments reveal more than just a potential policy direction; they expose a fundamental disregard for the well-being of American citizens and a cavalier attitude towards military engagement. The administration's refusal to rule out the draft is not a display of strength; it's a stark warning of how far they're willing to go, regardless of the cost.This is not just about the military siege on Iran. It's about the value placed on American lives and the lengths to which this administration is willing to gamble with them. The draft, as a concept, should be a relic of the past, not a looming threat in our future. The potential re-introduction of conscription underlines a desperate, dangerous strategy that could have irreparable consequences for American society.In sum, the Trump administration's stance is not just a policy failure; it's a moral one. The American public deserves better than to have their loved ones' lives treated as bargaining chips in the high-stakes game of international politics.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Congresswoman Deborah Ross of North Carolina accused Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of deliberately withholding disaster relief funds and spending hundreds of millions on self-promotional contracts instead, and then of lying about her conduct.Appearing on MS NOW, Ross alleged that approximately $80 million in previously appropriated relief funds were mysteriously released immediately after Senator Thom Tillis publicly criticized Noem's department for failing to disburse the money during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing."The timing of the release of funding generally coincides with a congressional hearing," Ross stated, directly contradicting FEMA's claim that the release timing was unrelated to the oversight pressure. "She is just lying."Ross said Western North Carolina has endured two winters without sufficient disaster recovery funding despite Congress appropriating the money during the Biden administration. Meanwhile, she noted that Noem approved hundreds of millions in contracts for private jets and public relations for her department."We shouldn't have to have a U.S. senator come to you directly to get you to do your job," Ross said, characterizing the pattern as wasteful and potentially corrupt.The congresswoman also addressed the ongoing partial government shutdown affecting DHS, revealing Democrats have proposed two paths forward: implementing guardrails on ICE and CBP operations to prevent constitutional violations, and separating those provisions from FEMA and cybersecurity funding. Republicans, she said, remain resistant to reining in the department or Trump.Our Analysis:The Political Farce at DHS: A CritiqueIn a recent development that reeks of political maneuvering and gross mismanagement, Congresswoman Deborah Ross of North Carolina has thrown a spotlight on the dubious actions of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The accusations are grave: withholding disaster relief funds and funneling hundreds of millions into self-promotional contracts, followed by a blatant lie about the conduct. This is not just political theater; it's a tragedy in the making, underscoring the rot within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Noem's stewardship.Withholding Disaster Relief: A Calculated Move?Ross's allegations, aired on MS NOW, are damning. She claims that $80 million in previously appropriated relief funds were only released after Senator Thom Tillis publicly lambasted Noem's department. This isn't just an administrative oversight; it's a calculated move that played with the lives of those in Western North Carolina, who endured two winters without sufficient disaster recovery funding. The timing of the funding release, suspiciously coinciding with a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, raises questions about Noem's integrity and her department's operational ethics.FEMA's denial of the release timing being related to congressional oversight doesn't just strain credulity; it snaps it in half. Ross's accusation that Noem is "just lying" isn't a mere political jab; it's a reflection of a deeply rooted problem within DHS—a problem of transparency, accountability, and basic human decency.The Audacity of Waste: Self-Promotional Contracts Over Public WelfareEven more egregious is the allocation of hundreds of millions in contracts for private jets and public relations. In an era where public trust in government institutions is waning, Noem's actions are not just irresponsible; they're a slap in the face to those who have suffered from disasters and are in desperate need of support. The stark contrast between the immediate needs of disaster-stricken communities and the opulent spending on self-promotion paints a picture of a department gone rogue under Noem's leadership.A Systemic Failure: The Partial Government ShutdownThe ongoing partial government shutdown further complicates the issue, with DHS at the center of a political standoff. Democrats, according to Ross, have proposed practical solutions, including implementing guardrails on ICE and CBP operations to prevent constitutional violations. Yet, Republicans, seemingly in lockstep with Trumpian politics, have resisted any attempt to rein in the department. This resistance isn't just political stubbornness; it's a dangerous game that jeopardizes national security and the welfare of millions.Conclusion: A Call for AccountabilityThe situation at DHS under Secretary Kristi Noem is a stark reminder of the systemic errors plaguing our political system. It's not just about the misallocation of funds or the politicization of disaster relief; it's about the erosion of public trust and the flagrant disregard for the principles of governance. The allegations brought forth by Congresswoman Deborah Ross demand not just scrutiny but immediate action. A thorough investigation into the conduct of Noem and her department is not just warranted; it's imperative.The manipulation of disaster relief funds, the wasteful spending on self-promotion, and the blatant lying are symptoms of a larger disease—a disease that can only be cured by a healthy dose of transparency, accountability, and a return to ethical governance. The citizens of Western North Carolina, and indeed all Americans, deserve better than the political farce currently unfolding at DHS. It's time for those in power to remember whom they serve: not their own interests, but the American people.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:A widely followed hedge funder over the weekend made a "ludicrous forecast" for the 2028 presidential race based on information he got about a Trump team shakeup from his White House sources.Doug Kass, president of Seabreeze Partners Management in Palm Beach, Florida, took to social media on Saturday to divulge what he has learned from his sources inside the White House.According to Kass, it can be simplified into four words: "Vance Out, Rubio In..." He then added that the info came in directly "from my sources in the Administration.""The President's allegiance to Vance is waning and Rubio is becoming his 'fair haired boy,'" he added. "[Ludicrous] forecast? Rubio, not Vance, will be the 2028 Republican Presidential candidate."Another conservative commentator, Fox correspondent Charles Gasparino, disagreed with the purported sources."Yeah that 'source' doesn’t understand Trump. He’s a fickle guy and the flavor of the month now might not be in a week or a month," Gasparino wrote. "Plus he likes both Marco and JD. The bigger story is the White House being divided into factions over the Iran conflict with Rubio being a hawk and Vance being on the other side. Trump chose the Rubio wing for now but that could change particularly if the war doesn’t go well."Vance Out, Rubio In...From my sources in the Administration.The President's allegiance to Vance is waning and Rubio is becoming his "fair haired boy."Ludacris forecast? Rubio, not Vance, will be the 2028 Republican Presidential candidate.@dougkass @tomkeene @business…— Dougie Kass (@DougKass) March 7, 2026Our Analysis:Analyzing the Predictive Pandemonium in Presidential PoliticsIn the swirling vortex of political speculation, Doug Kass, president of Seabreeze Partners Management, has thrown a rather peculiar prediction into the mix, concerning the 2028 presidential race. Kass, who apparently enjoys close enough ties to the White House to claim insider information, suggests a significant shakeup in the Trump team lineup: "Vance Out, Rubio In...". This bold prediction, based on whispers from the corridors of power, deserves a thorough dissection for its potential implications and inherent absurdity.The Source of the StormFirstly, the reliance on unnamed sources within the administration raises immediate red flags about the veracity of Kass's claim. While insider information is the bread and butter of political journalism, the lack of specificity here invites skepticism. Kass boldly asserts that Marco Rubio is now the golden boy of the moment, overshadowing J.D. Vance, based solely on these nebulous whispers.The Fickle Nature of Political FavorCharles Gasparino, a seasoned conservative commentator, injects a healthy dose of reality into this speculative frenzy. Gasparino highlights Trump's notorious unpredictability and the transient nature of political favor, especially under a figure as mercurial as Trump. This observation alone should give pause to anyone taking Kass's forecast at face value. The political landscape, particularly within the Trump orbit, is as stable as quicksand, rendering any long-term predictions particularly ludicrous.The Factional Fight and Foreign PolicyThe underlying narrative of a White House divided into factions over the Iran conflict adds a layer of complexity to this tale. With Rubio cast as the hawk and Vance as the dove, the dynamic within Trump's circle resembles less a well-oiled machine and more a gladiatorial arena. The notion that Rubio's current favor is tied to his hawkish stance on Iran, and potentially subject to change based on the conflict's outcomes, illustrates the precariousness of political alliances and the folly of basing presidential predictions on them.Conclusion: A Ludicrous Forecast IndeedIn sum, Doug Kass's prediction for the 2028 Republican Presidential candidate, based on so-called insider information, ventures far into the realm of the absurd. It underscores not only the unpredictable nature of Trump's allegiances but also the futility of attempting to forecast political developments years in advance in such a volatile environment. The only certainty in this saga is the uncertainty itself.Political predictions, especially those claiming insider insight, should always be taken with a hefty grain of salt. The case of "Vance Out, Rubio In" serves as a perfect exemplar of the hazards of hitching one's analytical wagon to the star of political favoritism within the tempestuous Trump administration.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:One investigative journalist highlighted a name she says stands out of the Jeffrey Epstein files.There has been a lot of talk connected to associates of the late child abuser, yet few names have surfaced. But independent journalist Amber Woods decided to do just that over the weekend.Taking to X, Woods wrote, "One name that jumps out in the files: Richard Kahn (Kann) — a longtime fixer for Epstein’s network and is a beneficiary to his estate."She then added that "Kahn has been paid tens of millions," before noting that "Deutsche Bank flagged him as a child sex offender (including rape, CSM material, sodomy)."Finally, she said, "This is a man who was protected by the far reaching 'sweetheart' plea deal for those in Epstein’s network."In related news, a prison guard responsible for checking in on the late financier and convicted sex offender Epstein has been tied to a "mysterious cash deposit" and an incriminating Google search, according to a new report.Our Analysis:An Unsettling Dive into the Depths of the Epstein ScandalThe Jeffrey Epstein scandal, a saga that intertwines the rich, powerful, and depraved, continues to unravel, revealing a tapestry of complicity and corruption that seems to know no bounds. Independent journalist Amber Woods, refusing to let the story dim in the public's memory, has thrust a new name into the spotlight: Richard Kahn (or Kann). Let's dissect the revelations and implications of Woods' investigation with the critical eye it demands.Richard Kahn: A New, Yet Familiar FigureKahn is not a name the general public might recognize, unlike some of Epstein's more infamous associates. However, Woods' investigation paints a picture of a man deeply embedded in Epstein's dark web of exploitation. A "longtime fixer" for Epstein, Kahn's role, as alleged, wasn't marginal. The term fixer itself conjures images of someone smoothing over the illegal and immoral for the sake of the network's continuity and secrecy. That Kahn is also a beneficiary to Epstein's estate only thickens the plot, suggesting a level of trust and importance within Epstein's inner circle that cannot be overstated.The Financial Trail: Woods' claim that Kahn has been "paid tens of millions" is a staggering one. This isn't just pocket change; it's a fortune, one that ostensibly comes with strings attached—strings made of silence and complicity. The fact that Deutsche Bank flagged him as a child sex offender, including charges as severe as rape and the possession of Child Sexual Material (CSM), only adds a layer of institutional awareness and, distressingly, potential institutional negligence or complicity.The Sweetheart Deal ProtectionKahn's alleged protection by the "sweetheart" plea deal—crafted for Epstein and, by extension, his network—exemplifies the systemic failure to hold powerful individuals accountable. This deal, widely criticized for its leniency and the broad immunity it offered to unnamed co-conspirators, underscores a justice system warped by power and influence. That Kahn could potentially benefit from such a deal is a mockery of the victims' suffering and the concept of justice itself.The Tangled Web of Epstein's AssociatesThe addition of a prison guard tied to "mysterious cash deposits" and incriminating Google searches further complicates the narrative. It hints at a level of corruption and cover-up that goes beyond Epstein and his closest associates. The systemic rot, it seems, extends into the very institutions that were supposed to investigate and incarcerate Epstein.Conclusion: A Scandal Far From OverWoods' investigation into Richard Kahn is a reminder of the unfinished business in the Epstein saga. It highlights not just the individuals who participated in Epstein's network of abuse but also the broader failures of financial, legal, and correctional institutions to address and rectify glaring red flags.The Epstein scandal, with its tentacles wrapped around the pillars of society, continues to demand our attention and outrage. As more names like Richard Kahn emerge from the shadows, we're reminded of the long road ahead in seeking justice for the victims and accountability for those who enabled such heinous acts.In a world that too often looks the other way, let's not forget the importance of independent journalism like Amber Woods'—it's a beacon of hope for truth in an era of pervasive darkness. The fight against systemic abuse and corruption is far from over, and every revelation is a step closer to dismantling the networks of power that shield the guilty.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:One investigative journalist highlighted a name she says stands out of the Jeffrey Epstein files.There has been a lot of talk connected to associates of the late child abuser, yet few names have surfaced. But independent journalist Amber Woods decided to do just that over the weekend.Taking to X, Woods wrote, "One name that jumps out in the files: Richard Kahn (Kann) — a longtime fixer for Epstein’s network and is a beneficiary to his estate."She then added that "Kahn has been paid tens of millions," before noting that "Deutsche Bank flagged him as a child sex offender (including rape, CSM material, sodomy)."Finally, she said, "This is a man who was protected by the far reaching 'sweetheart' plea deal for those in Epstein’s network."In related news, a prison guard responsible for checking in on the late financier and convicted sex offender Epstein has been tied to a "mysterious cash deposit" and an incriminating Google search, according to a new report.Our Analysis:An Unsettling Dive into the Depths of the Epstein ScandalThe Jeffrey Epstein scandal, a saga that intertwines the rich, powerful, and depraved, continues to unravel, revealing a tapestry of complicity and corruption that seems to know no bounds. Independent journalist Amber Woods, refusing to let the story dim in the public's memory, has thrust a new name into the spotlight: Richard Kahn (or Kann). Let's dissect the revelations and implications of Woods' investigation with the critical eye it demands.Richard Kahn: A New, Yet Familiar FigureKahn is not a name the general public might recognize, unlike some of Epstein's more infamous associates. However, Woods' investigation paints a picture of a man deeply embedded in Epstein's dark web of exploitation. A "longtime fixer" for Epstein, Kahn's role, as alleged, wasn't marginal. The term fixer itself conjures images of someone smoothing over the illegal and immoral for the sake of the network's continuity and secrecy. That Kahn is also a beneficiary to Epstein's estate only thickens the plot, suggesting a level of trust and importance within Epstein's inner circle that cannot be overstated.The Financial Trail: Woods' claim that Kahn has been "paid tens of millions" is a staggering one. This isn't just pocket change; it's a fortune, one that ostensibly comes with strings attached—strings made of silence and complicity. The fact that Deutsche Bank flagged him as a child sex offender, including charges as severe as rape and the possession of Child Sexual Material (CSM), only adds a layer of institutional awareness and, distressingly, potential institutional negligence or complicity.The Sweetheart Deal ProtectionKahn's alleged protection by the "sweetheart" plea deal—crafted for Epstein and, by extension, his network—exemplifies the systemic failure to hold powerful individuals accountable. This deal, widely criticized for its leniency and the broad immunity it offered to unnamed co-conspirators, underscores a justice system warped by power and influence. That Kahn could potentially benefit from such a deal is a mockery of the victims' suffering and the concept of justice itself.The Tangled Web of Epstein's AssociatesThe addition of a prison guard tied to "mysterious cash deposits" and incriminating Google searches further complicates the narrative. It hints at a level of corruption and cover-up that goes beyond Epstein and his closest associates. The systemic rot, it seems, extends into the very institutions that were supposed to investigate and incarcerate Epstein.Conclusion: A Scandal Far From OverWoods' investigation into Richard Kahn is a reminder of the unfinished business in the Epstein saga. It highlights not just the individuals who participated in Epstein's network of abuse but also the broader failures of financial, legal, and correctional institutions to address and rectify glaring red flags.The Epstein scandal, with its tentacles wrapped around the pillars of society, continues to demand our attention and outrage. As more names like Richard Kahn emerge from the shadows, we're reminded of the long road ahead in seeking justice for the victims and accountability for those who enabled such heinous acts.In a world that too often looks the other way, let's not forget the importance of independent journalism like Amber Woods'—it's a beacon of hope for truth in an era of pervasive darkness. The fight against systemic abuse and corruption is far from over, and every revelation is a step closer to dismantling the networks of power that shield the guilty.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:By Scott Lucas, Professor of International Politics, Clinton Institute, University College Dublin. The conflict in the Middle East continues, and is showing no sign of letting up. Israeli and US warplanes have continued to strike targets inside Iran, which has prompted retaliatory attacks throughout the region. An American submarine has also sunk an Iranian navy ship off the coast of Sri Lanka, killing at least 80 people, while Nato defences intercepted a missile heading towards Turkey.US officials, who initially envisioned the conflict in Iran lasting four to five weeks, are now warning it may go on far longer. “We are accelerating, not decelerating,” Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters on March 4, adding that “more bombers and more fighters are arriving just today”. We asked Middle East expert Scott Lucas how dangerous the situation has become.You’ve called this ‘uncontained war’. What do you mean by that?Once the Iranian regime retaliated, hours after initial US-Israel airstrikes that it was later revealed killed Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, this was no longer just an American-Israeli war on Iran. Tehran, which had refrained from retaliation beyond Israel in the 12-day war in 2025, was taking this across the region.This was a war in the Gulf states, where Iran fired not only on American bases but also industrial areas, ports and tankers. This was a war in Lebanon, where Israel responded to Hezbollah rocket fire with airstrikes and an expansion of its occupation in the south of the country. This was the possibility of war spreading to Iraq, where the US military and CIA may be supporting Iranian Kurds for a cross-border incursion.It is now possibly also a war beyond the Middle East. A drone attacked the UK’s RAF Akrotiri base in Cyprus and an Iranian missile has been intercepted flying towards Turkey. Drones have struck an airport and school in Azerbaijan. Iran has denied responsibility but the Azerbaijani president, Ilham Aliyev, has put his armed forces on high readiness.How dangerous a moment is this?War is always dangerous, of course, but this conflict is compounded by the shattering of any international “rules of the game”. The US and Israel have blatantly violated international law. They have assassinated the head of another country and his senior officials.The United Nations can condemn the strikes, but this will be easily disregarded by Israel and the US. Donald Trump has historically taken little notice of UN criticism, and said in January that his power is limited only by his “own morality”. European countries can call for deescalation, but almost all have now prioritized working with the US on the defense of positions threatened by the Iranians.China is maintaining a cautious position and Russia will be grateful that attention is being taken away from its invasion of Ukraine. If the Iranian regime does not surrender, there does not appear to be anyone or anything capable of checking the US and Israeli attacks — and thus the retaliatory shocks across the region and beyond.Is there a risk that Nato will be drawn in?Nato is already drawn in. Once Iran went beyond the Middle East to threaten Cyprus and Turkey, then the bloc had to take action. However, while Nato forces downed the missile heading towards Turkish airspace, the alliance is not yet discussing invoking Article 5 (the agreement that an attack on one Nato member is considered an attack on all).The alliance has also become involved in the conflict verbally to ensure the Trump camp does not abandon Ukrainian and European security at a sensitive point in talks to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Nato secretary general Mark Rutte, already known for calling Trump “daddy”, has given fulsome praise to the war even as some Nato members like Spain condemn it.In a recent interview with a German television channel, Rutte said: “It’s really important what the US is doing here, together with Israel, because it is taking out, degrading the capacity of Iran to get its hands on nuclear capability.”Where are the Gulf states in this? What happened to Qatar’s attempts to mediate?The Gulf states are likely to be happy that Iran’s supreme leader and others in his circle have been assassinated. For decades, Khamenei had pursued a strategy of expanding Iran’s influence across the Middle East — directly threatening Gulf monarchies. However, they are loathe to see regime change, fearing the disorder and instability that marked Iraq after the 2003 US invasion.They have been trying to pull back the Trump administration — an initiative by Qatar to persuade Trump into finding an off-ramp is notable — but they have to do so quietly. Open opposition to the US president risks even more serious disruption of the political and economic situation, with no guarantee that a triggered Trump will listen.There is a further complication because of division among the Gulf states. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait put some of the blame for the rising hostilities in the Middle East on the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, for their policy of normalising relations with Israel. They claim this has emboldened the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu.So far, the quiet push for deescalation does not appear to have succeeded. Without naming Qatar or another Gulf partner, Trump said on March 3 there will be no talks with Tehran.The US and Israel are reportedly arming Kurdish groups. How could that change things?With Plan A for regime surrender not succeeding so far, the Trump camp has had to consider what to do next. More bombing and an incursion by ground forces are two options, as is supporting an insurrection by Iranian Kurds.It appears the US president and his senior advisers (along with their Israeli allies) may opt for the Kurdish option. According to reports, Trump has in recent days called Kurdish minority leaders to offer them “extensive US air cover” and other backing if they enter the conflict.But the Iranian regime will undoubtedly unleash its military against the insurgents, throwing the west of the country into further turmoil. And it will have a justification to rally Iranians around the nation, despite the mass protests that were crushed in January.Even if the US can support the insurgency in splitting off part of Iran, what happens to the rest of the country? What does Plan B offer other than instability and fragmentation that could parallel post-2003 Iraq?This does not bring an assurance that the regime’s retaliation will be halted soon. Meanwhile, the US military is facing a shortage of interceptors which — if Iran’s firepower has not been expended — maintains the threat facing the Gulf states.Scott Lucas joined University College Dublin in 2022 as Professor of International Politics, having been on the staff of the University of Birmingham since 1989. He began his career as a specialist in US and British foreign policy, but his research interests now also cover current international affairs — especially North Africa, the Middle East, and Iran – New Media, and Intelligence Services. A professional journalist since 1979, Professor Lucas is the founder and editor of EA WorldView, a leading website in daily news and analysis of Iran, Turkey, Syria, and the wider Middle East, as well as US foreign policy.Our Analysis:Analysis: Deconstructing the Uncontained War in the Middle EastThe recent article by Scott Lucas on the escalating conflict in the Middle East paints a grim picture of an uncontained war spiraling out of control, with the United States and Israel at the helm of a dangerous escalation. Lucas's insights, grounded in his expertise on international politics, offer a sobering look at the consequences of such conflict. However, the situation demands a deeper dive, especially into the strategic missteps and the brazen disregard for international law that characterize this unfolding tragedy.The Blatant Violation of International LawThe assassination of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, by US and Israeli forces is not just a tactical move—it's a flagrant breach of international norms and principles. The United States and Israel's actions are emblematic of a dangerous precedent where might is right, and international law is but a mere inconvenience. The assassination, coupled with the subsequent airstrikes, underscores a ruthless approach to foreign policy that disregards the sovereignty of nations and the sanctity of human lives.The Mirage of NATO's RoleNATO's involvement, or the lack thereof, in this conflict is particularly telling. The interception of a missile heading towards Turkey and the non-invocation of Article 5 reveal a hesitant alliance caught between its obligations and the whims of its more aggressive members. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's endorsement of the US-Israeli actions, while some member states call for deescalation, highlights a fractured alliance struggling to maintain a unified front. This disunity within NATO not only weakens the alliance but also emboldens the aggressors to continue their onslaught unabated.The Gulf States: Between a Rock and a Hard PlaceThe Gulf states find themselves in a precarious position, caught between condemning Iran's expanding influence and fearing the chaos that regime change might bring. Qatar's attempt to mediate is a testament to the region's desire for a peaceful resolution, yet it's met with Trump's dismissive stance, showcasing a dangerous unilateralism that sidelines diplomatic efforts. The division among Gulf states, exacerbated by policies towards Israel, adds another layer of complexity to an already volatile situation.The Kurdish ConundrumThe consideration of arming Kurdish groups by the US and Israel as a Plan B introduces a new dimension of risk to the conflict. While it may seem like a viable strategy to undermine the Iranian regime, the potential backlash and further destabilization of the region cannot be ignored. The Kurdish option, fraught with the risk of igniting a wider insurgency, could plunge the west of Iran into chaos, reminiscent of the disorder seen in post-2003 Iraq. This move could inadvertently unify Iranians under a nationalist banner, further complicating the conflict.Conclusion: A Dangerous Game with No WinnersThe article by Scott Lucas lays bare the complexities and dangers of the current Middle East conflict. However, it's crucial to recognize that the actions taken by the US and Israel not only exacerbate the violence but also undermine the very principles of international law and order. The potential for this conflict to draw in NATO and further divide the Gulf states presents a scenario with no clear winners, only losers—chief among them, the civilians caught in the crossfire.As we navigate these turbulent times, it's imperative to question the path we're on and the world we’re shaping. The uncontained war in the Middle East is not just a regional conflict; it's a stark reminder of the failure of diplomacy, the disregard for international norms, and the tragic consequences of unchecked aggression.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:A Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee took President Donald Trump to task over his latest threat to prosecute one of his enemies. Rep. Rebecca Balint (D-VT) spoke with Raw Story on Thursday after former special counsel Jack Smith testified publicly before the committee on Thursday morning. His testimony came as the Trump administration faces significant pressure on multiple fronts over its failure to release the Jeffrey Epstein files by the deadline required by law and his continued fruitless efforts to prosecute people the president considers enemies, like former FBI Director James Comey and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Following Smith's testimony, Trump posted on Truth Social that there is "no question" Smith should be prosecuted. "The president proves our point!" Balint said. "It is all about punishment. It is all about vindictiveness. It's about retribution. The fact that we were making this case that that is what the president is about; he was literally on Truth Social doing it in real time, and my colleagues on the Republican side pretend that it's not what that's about."Balint also called out her colleagues for supporting Trump's revisionism surrounding the events of Jan. 6, 2021. "The receipts are there!" Balint said. "They were running away from the January 6 people. They were hiding in their offices, and there they were hours later, saying this was horrible. It's like they've all had lobotomies."

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Fox News over the weekend apologized and admitted to an "error" after failing to air footage of Donald Trump wearing what some deemed a controversial choice of attire to the dignified transfer of deceased soldiers.On Saturday, Trump came under fire for his behavior during a solemn moment in which six fallen soldiers killed in the president's onslaught against Iran were honored. The president was seen during the event standing upright while others bowed their heads. He was also wearing a white baseball cap during the typically solemn event, which was broadcast in complete silence on CNN.Instead of playing that video for its audience, Fox News said it played an old video from a different dignified transfer. A host later apologized."We inadvertently aired video from an older dignified transfer instead of the ceremony that took place yesterday," he said. "We deeply regret the error."The development was flagged by attorney and journalist Aaron Parnas, who wrote, "Fox News admits to airing an old dignified transfer video on its program this morning, one that did not show Donald Trump wearing a white ball cap."Our Analysis:Fox News' "Error": A Convenient Oversight or A Deliberate Act?In what can only be described as a blatant disregard for journalistic integrity, Fox News 'apologized' for what they termed an "error" after failing to air footage of Donald Trump's controversial attire during the dignified transfer of deceased soldiers. This so-called mistake not only raises questions about the network's commitment to truthful reporting but also highlights a potentially deliberate attempt to shield Trump from criticism.The Controversy: Trump's Attire and BehaviorDonald Trump, a figure no stranger to controversy, attended a solemn event to honor the fallen soldiers killed in an onslaught against Iran. Yet, it was his choice of attire—a white baseball cap—during this dignified transfer that sparked outrage. This event, meant to pay respects to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, was sullied by Trump's decision to stand out rather than show reverence.Fox News' Convenient "Error"Fox News, a network often criticized for its unabashed bias towards conservative figures, "inadvertently" aired an old video from a different dignified transfer, conveniently omitting Trump's recent faux pas. This "error" was later acknowledged with an apology that felt more like a slap on the wrist rather than a sincere admission of wrongdoing.The Apology: A host stated, "We inadvertently aired video from an older dignified transfer instead of the ceremony that took place yesterday. We deeply regret the error." This statement, while acknowledging the mistake, lacks depth and fails to address the underlying issue: Why was the wrong footage aired in the first place?The Bigger Picture: Fox News and Media ResponsibilityThis incident is not merely about a network making an "error"; it's a glaring example of the challenges facing today's media landscape. Fox News' decision to air incorrect footage—whether by mistake or design—serves as a convenient way to shield Trump from the backlash of his inappropriate behavior.Media's Role in Shaping PerceptionsMedia outlets have a profound responsibility to present facts accurately and without bias. When networks like Fox News fail to do so, it not only undermines their credibility but also contributes to a polarized and misinformed public. This "error" is a stark reminder of the need for vigilance and critical thinking when consuming news.Conclusion: A Call for AccountabilityFox News' "apology" for failing to air the correct footage is a band-aid solution to a much larger problem. This incident should serve as a wake-up call for the network and its viewers: Journalistic integrity and accountability are non-negotiable.In an era where misinformation can spread like wildfire, it's imperative that news organizations uphold the highest standards of reporting. Anything less is a disservice to the public and to the principles of a free and honest press.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:A House Democrat uncorked a fiery broadside against House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Comer on Tuesday, accusing the Republican lawmaker of "dragging his feet" on the Jeffrey Epstein investigation with his escalating demands of former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.Comer effectively forced the Clintons to sit for depositions in the House Oversight Committee’s Epstein probe, and the fight has shifted from whether they’ll appear to on what terms and when. The agreement came after about six months of delaying and resisting subpoenas, during which the committee advanced contempt of Congress measures against both Clintons for non‑compliance.After the Clintons’ lawyers said Monday night that they would comply, Comer set a noon Tuesday deadline for them to explicitly accept the “standard” terms: transcribed, filmed depositions in February with no time limit. If they fail, he threatened to continue with contempt proceedings.Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) didn't hold back, calling Comer's demands "pretty crazy," and telling reporters Tuesday the Republican set a "new precedent," one that Democrats may take advantage of in the future. He laid out what he described as a clear double standard in how Comer is treating the Clintons compared to other witnesses.Garcia said the Clintons have already bent over backward to accommodate Comer's demands, offering two specific dates, Feb. 26 and 27, for testimony. "They have accepted all of James Comer's long list of demands, which, by the way, go beyond what Comer has requested from the people," Garcia explained.Garcia emphasized that Comer has allowed most witnesses he subpoenaed to submit written declarations instead of appearing in person. Not so for the Clintons."Most of the folks that James Comer has sent subpoenas to, he's allowed them to testify in writing. So most of, actually a vast majority, have actually submitted their declarations in writing," Garcia stated. "The former president and Secretary of State are going above and beyond what other folks have done."Garcia questioned why Comer is now "dragging his feet.""Let's hear from President Clinton. Let's get the testimony and let's stop playing political games. We want to move this investigation forward," Garcia declared, essentially calling out what he sees as manufactured obstruction from the GOP.Our Analysis:Analysis of House Democrat's Fiery Broadside Against James ComerIn a recent eruption of political theater, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Comer has found himself at the center of controversy, accused of intentionally slowing the investigation into the murky dealings of Jeffrey Epstein, particularly in relation to former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The narrative here is loaded with implications, not just about the investigation's pace, but about the political machinations behind it. Let's dissect the elements piece by piece.Comer's Escalating DemandsThe core accusation against Comer is that he has been "dragging his feet" on the Epstein investigation, a phrase that suggests deliberate obstruction. The demands placed upon the Clintons—transcribed, filmed depositions with no time limit—are framed as unusually rigorous, especially given the backdrop of most other witnesses being permitted to submit written declarations. This discrepancy is not just a procedural anomaly; it's a strategic maneuver designed to exert pressure and perhaps extract concessions or admissions under duress.The Clinton's ComplianceIt's noteworthy that the Clintons, despite their powerful political standing and the resources at their disposal, have agreed to Comer's terms. This decision could be seen as a testament to their willingness to engage with the investigation's process, yet Comer's threat of contempt proceedings hangs over this like a Damocles' sword. The Clintons' compliance, highlighted by setting specific dates for their testimony, contrasts starkly with Comer's portrayal of them as obstinate or evasive.Garcia's CounterstrikeRep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) emerges as a vocal critic of Comer's approach, labeling it "pretty crazy" and indicative of a "new precedent." Garcia's commentary is crucial for several reasons. Firstly, it points to a perceived double standard in how witnesses are treated based on their political affiliations or past offices. Secondly, it signals a warning: the procedural tools and tactics employed by Comer today could be wielded by Democrats tomorrow. In essence, Garcia is hinting at the potential for political retribution, a cycle of action and reaction that could further polarize Congressional investigations.The Underlying Issue: A Double StandardAt the heart of Garcia's critique is the allegation of a double standard. This is not merely about the specifics of the Epstein investigation but reflects broader concerns about fairness, transparency, and the potential misuse of Congressional authority for partisan ends. The differentiation in treatment between the Clintons and other witnesses raises questions about the integrity of the investigative process and whether it's being used as a vehicle for political vendettas.Conclusion: Political Gamesmanship at PlayIn conclusion, this situation reeks of political gamesmanship, with the Epstein investigation serving as the battleground. Comer's tactics, whether seen as thorough investigation or obstructive overreach, underscore the deeply partisan nature of contemporary Congressional inquiries. Garcia's outspoken challenge to Comer not only highlights the immediate issue of procedural fairness but also serves as a cautionary tale about the future of political oversight.The real question moving forward is whether the investigation's findings will be viewed through an impartial lens or dismissed as the product of political maneuvering. As this saga unfolds, the credibility of Congressional investigations hangs in the balance, possibly undermining public trust in the very institutions designed to hold power to account.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com