Warlike Parakeet 2

Survivors Cling to Life in Gaza’s Tent Cities

As another disaster is averted, let’s take a breath . . . and then prepare for the next battle.

April 8, 2026

Robert B. Hubbell

We should be long past the point where Trump’s mad ravings distract us. But Trump’s Tuesday morning prediction of the “death of a whole civilization” was so horrific that even taking it at 1/1,000th of 1% of face value was cause for profound anxiety, concern, and national shame. As usual, Trump caved at the last moment, possibly agreeing to demands that will place Iran in a stronger position than it occupied prior to the war. (The latter point is uncertain and may remain so for some time as the parties work on a final peace agreement.)

Trump posted the following on Truth Social:

In predicting that a “whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,”

Trump committed an international crime by threatening (or inciting) genocide as a negotiating tactic;

Irreparably injured the moral legitimacy of the US as a global leader;

Damaged the reputation of the US military as an institution that honors the law of war and the Geneva Conventions; and

Repulsed the people of America and the world with a threat so vile it was never uttered by the worst dictators and war criminals of the last 100 years.

Let’s be clear: Threatening genocide (by inciting others to do so) is an international crime, and threatening the destruction of civilian infrastructure is a war crime.

For example, Article 51 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977) states the following regarding “Protection of the Civilian Population”:

The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

Sadly, some mainstream commentators are comparing Trump’s comments to “bluster.” See NYTimes, With Threat to Wipe Out Iran’s Civilization, Trump’s Rhetoric Goes Beyond Bluster. Nowhere does the Times’ analysis suggest that Trump is violating international law or committing a war crime. The closest the Times comes to that conclusion is to quote Tucker Carlson, as follows:

“It is vile on every level,” Mr. Carlson said on his podcast. “It begins with a promise to use the U.S. military, our military, to destroy civilian infrastructure in another country, which is to say to commit a war crime, a moral crime against the people of the country, whose welfare, by the way, was one of the reasons we supposedly went into this war in the first place.”

If ever there was a moment for the NYTimes to rise to the moment to condemn Trump’s reckless, unlawful threats, this was the moment. The Times’s failure to speak with moral clarity about Trump’s reprehensible comments will be a stain on its reputation forever.

There was one glimmer of hope in the twelve hours between Trump’s grotesque threat to the “whole civilization” of Iran and his surrender masquerading as a “cease fire.” Retired Army Major General Randy Manner told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that he heard second-hand reports that CENTCOM planners were quietly rejecting targets suggested by Pete Hegseth. See Mediaite, Ret. Major General Says He’s Been Told the Military Is ‘Already Saying No’ To Pentagon Higher-Ups.

General Manner said, in part,

The idea of attacking bridges that are clearly, overwhelmingly for civilian use would be a war crime, and that the planners in CENTCOM would not permit that. I have already indications that many targets that were recommended by the Secretary of Defense were rejected by CENTCOM, that they were civilian targets. It is something where, again, I don’t have firsthand knowledge. It’s secondhand knowledge. But I believe that people are already saying no to the hierarchy.

Trump and Hegseth have fired and excluded army lawyers from the planning of military strikes. So, it makes sense that the military commanders in charge of the combat missions in Iran—here, CENTCOM—would be the last line of defense against unlawful orders issued by Trump and Hegseth.

If General Manner’s second-hand information is true—with emphasis on “if”—it is reassuring that the professional military leaders are refusing to follow the unlawful orders by Trump and Hegseth.

Trump caved to Iran’s demands but is claiming victory.

The terms of the two-week cease-fire are uncertain as of Tuesday evening because there are four different versions of the cease-fire—one by Trump and three by Iran.

Trump announced the cease-fire on Truth Social. We can discount Trump’s version as false because Trump is an inveterate liar. Trump did his best to couch the cease-fire as a victory that reopened the Strait of Hormuz. Trump wrote, in part,

[W] herein [negotiators] requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double sided CEASEFIRE! The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all Military objectives, and are very far along with a definitive Agreement concerning Longterm PEACE with Iran, and PEACE in the Middle East. We received a 10-point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate.

Trump’s statement alleges that he secured the “complete, immediate, and safe” opening of the Strait of Hormuz. That statement was contradicted by all three statements issued by Iran, each of which stated that the Strait would open via “Controlled passage through the Strait of Hormuz coordinated with Iran’s armed forces.”

Note that Trump suggested Iran’s “10-point plan” was a “workable basis to negotiate.” Iran’s Supreme National Security Council published that 10-point plan, as follows:

Controlled passage through the Strait of Hormuz coordinated with Iran’s armed forces

The necessity of ending the war against all components of the resistance axis (including the militant group Hezbollah)

Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from all bases and positions in the region

Establishment of a secure transit protocol in the Strait of Hormuz, ensuring Iran’s control under the agreed framework.

Full compensation for damages to Iran.

Removal of all primary and secondary sanctions and relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the U.N. Security Council.

Release of all frozen Iranian assets abroad.

The adoption of all these provisions in a binding U.N. Security Council resolution.

Astute observers will note that the 10-point plan contains 8 points, as translated. That said, it is difficult to identify more than two points that the US will likely accept (the return of frozen Iranian assets abroad and the removal of sanctions).

The two points in the proposal regarding the Strait of Hormuz would put the Iranian military in control of the Strait. Press reports suggest that Iran will continue to impose a $2 million toll on ships transiting through the Strait of Hormuz. The toll has been in place since mid-March, and Iran is seeking to formalize its newly asserted right to collect tolls, with Oman acting as co-administrator of the “toll shipping lanes” in the Strait of Hormuz. See House of Saud, Iran’s Hormuz Toll Law Moves Toward Full Parliamentary Vote as Oman Co-Drafts the Enforcement Protocol.

Notably, the ten points say nothing about Iran’s uranium enrichment program, although one source is reporting that Iran is demanding the ability to continue that program. See Foreign Policy, U.S., Iran Agree to 2-Week Cease-Fire. (“The 10-point plan reportedly calls on the United States to withdraw combat forces from the region, lift all sanctions against Iran, permit the country to enrich uranium, compensate it for war damages, and allow it to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz.)

If Iran’s 10-point plan provides a “workable basis to negotiate,” it could leave Iran in a much stronger position than it was before the war vis-à-vis the Strait of Hormuz. That would be a major step backward for the US and the world.

The NY Times reports on how Trump blundered into the war.

The New York Times has remarkable first-person reporting on how Trump blundered his way into the war against Iran. See NYTimes, How Trump Took the U.S. to War With Iran. (Gift article, accessible to all.) We will be living with the consequences of Trump’s illegal war against Iran for decades; now would be a good time to understand how Trump’s advisers allowed him to make the biggest foreign policy mistake by any president in half a century.

In short, Trump is served by a skulk of cowards who have no personal convictions other than pleasing Trump. General Cain, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, limited his advice to “on the one hand, on the other hand.” Marco Rubio was a cipher. Susie Wiles was the room monitor. CIA Director Ratcliffe failed to apprise Trump of the on-the-ground realities of resistance in Iran and essentially took no position.

The one person who consistently advised Trump that the war was a bad idea was Vice President Vance. But even Vance said, “If you choose to do it, I will support you.”

In the end, Trump was persuaded by Pete Hegseth and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who “oversold” the ease of victory and regime change. It is their war—Trump, Hegseth, and Netanyahu. But it was aided by the silence, complicity, and incompetence of Trump’s cabinet members, who were picked because they have no spines or moral compasses.

Concluding Thoughts

Tuesday was a hard day. I spent most of it like many of you—laboring under a foreboding sense of dread mixed with collective national embarrassment that our president threatened the destruction of a “whole civilization”—an unspeakable crime that could only be accomplished by weapons of mass destruction.

In retrospect, Trump’s capitulation and predictable claim that his defeat was really a wild success confirmed what we already know—Trump is a coward and a blowhard who talks much tougher than he acts. But this was different, if only because of the terror that he inflicted on tens of millions of people in Iran, many of whom oppose the current regime. But it was different also because he is our president and try as we might, we cannot disassociate ourselves from him in the eyes of the global community.

Or can we?

Democrats in the House and Senate are beginning to push for impeachment and application of the 25th Amendment. Those efforts may fail, but are nonetheless necessary. The Article II “circuit-breakers” exist not only to protect the people but also to protect the Constitution.

We have a moral obligation to bring articles of impeachment and demand Trump’s removal under the 25th Amendment. If we fail to do so, the global community may believe that we are not sincere in our claims that we oppose Trump’s grotesque conduct. But more importantly, we may gain the ability to impeach Trump in November 2026. If we do so, then we must mark Trump for all of history as the only president to be impeached three times, and more.

Take a breath . . . and then prepare for the next battle. Ours must not be the generation that falters in preserving the flame of democracy for the next generation.

Stay strong!