Leah McElrath

Americans are not prepared for the reaping of what our government is sowing.

Trump has had a lifelong fascination with nuclear weapons, which are what he appears to be talking about here:

We can all see where this is headed, right? “Taking control” of the Strait of Hormuz will require US boots on the ground. And if—which is a big IF—control is obtained—maintaining control of the strait will require military occupation of part of the territory of Iran.

Israel admits it’s conserving its supply of interceptor missiles. It says that shelters are sufficient to protect people from “cluster bomblets.” Of note: Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank do not have access to shelters. timesofisrael.com/to-conserve-in…

Iran's football chief has said the national team will take part in the 2026 FIFA World Cup, despite earlier warnings from authorities that the team could withdraw over security concerns. "We might boycott America but not the World Cup, and we'll participate," Mehdi Taj said.

This is a disaster of historic proportions. New poll shows that US voters believe Trump and Vance's war on Iran benefits Israel more than the US at a margin of *27 points.* And the poll was conducted nearly two weeks ago. Imagine what the numbers are now?

The administration now faces a stark choice—one it can no longer avoid. A. Use force to reopen the strait, knowing full well that any strike on Iran’s energy infrastructure will trigger retaliation. This is not a limited operation. It’s escalation—potentially rapid, and potentially uncontrollable. There are no half-measures here: if Washington wants the strait open, it will have to fight for it. B. Accept reality, cut losses, and pursue a deal with Tehran over the terms of access. Politically unpalatable? Absolutely. But when global oil flows and the stability of Asian markets are at stake, strategic necessity tends to override rhetoric. What last night made unmistakably clear is this: there is no clean solution. No surgical fix. No easy win. The longer the administration pretends otherwise, the higher the cost will be #IranWar‌

Using interviews, satellite imagery and atmospheric modelling, we reconstructed how smoke from strikes on oil infrastructure spread across Tehran. The plume extended across much of the city. Investigation by @weatherwar, @ntabrizy, @wammezz and myself. newlinesmag.com/reportage/the-…

Breaking from @halbritz @OrenCNN : A US F-35 fighter jet made an emergency landing at US air base in the Middle East after it was struck by what is believed to be Iranian fire, according to two sources familiar with the matter. Capt. Tim Hawkins, a spokesman for US Central Command, said the fifth-generation stealth jet was “flying a combat mission over Iran” when it was forced to make an emergency landing. Hawkins said the aircraft landed safely, and the incident is under investigation “The aircraft landed safely, and the pilot is in stable condition,” Hawkins added. The incident would be the first time Iran has hit a US aircraft in the war started in late February. Both the US and Israel are flying F-35s in the conflict; the aircraft costs upwards of $100 million.

Exclusive: Iran attack wipes out 17% of Qatar’s LNG capacity for up to five years - reuters.com/business/energ…

Almost three weeks into the war, Iran has carried out several dozen strikes on the critical energy infrastructure of all GCC countries and Israel, while its own oil and gas industry has remained largely unscathed (with the exception of part of the South Pars field that Israel hit yesterday.) The U.S. is now considering lifting sanctions on shipborne Iranian crude. The asymmetry of fear so far is clearly in Tehran’s favor.

WASHINGTON, March 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. may soon remove sanctions from Iranian oil that is stranded on tankers to help lift global supplies and reduce prices, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Thursday.

The reckless campaign against Iran will weaken America’s president. That will make him angry. Be warned: he makes a very bad loser econ.st/4lA7lEQ

In Lebanon, an Israeli missile landed right next to propagandists from "Russia Today".

This is probably the most important article of the month: an op-ed by Oman's Foreign Minister, who mediated the talks between the U.S. and Iran, in which he writes that the U.S. "has lost control of its foreign policy" to Israel. He repeats that a deal was possible as an outcome of the talks (something confirmed by the UK's National Security Advisor, who also attended: x.com/i/status/20341…) and that the military strike by the U.S. and Israel was "a shock." Interestingly, given he is one of Iran's neighbors and given that Oman has been struck multiple times by Iran since the war began (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran…), he writes that "Iran’s retaliation against what it claims are American targets on the territory of its neighbours was an inevitable result" of the U.S.-Israeli attack. He describes it as "probably the only rational option available to the Iranian leadership." He says the war "endangers" the region's entire "economic model in which global sport, tourism, aviation and technology were to play an important role." He adds that "if this had not been anticipated by the architects of this war, that was surely a grave miscalculation." But, he adds, the "greatest miscalculation" of all for the U.S. "was allowing itself to be drawn into this war in the first place." In his view this was the doing of "Israel’s leadership" who "persuaded America that Iran had been so weakened by sanctions, internal divisions and the American-Israeli bombings of its nuclear sites last June, that an unconditional surrender would swiftly follow the initial assault and the assassination of the supreme leader." Obviously, this proved completely wrong, and the U.S. is now in a quagmire. He says that, given this, "America’s friends have a responsibility to tell the truth," which is that "there are two parties to this war who have nothing to gain from it," namely "Iran and America." He says that all of the U.S. interests in the region (end to nuclear proliferation, secure energy supply chains, investment opportunities) are "best achieved with Iran at peace." As he writes, "this is an uncomfortable truth to tell, because it involves indicating the extent to which America has lost control of its own foreign policy. But it must be told." He then proposes a couple of paths to get back to the negotiating table, although he recognizes how difficult it would be for Iran "to return to dialogue with an administration that twice switched abruptly from talks to bombing and assassination." That's perhaps the most profound damage Trump did during this entire episode: the complete discrediting of diplomacy. If Iran was taught anything, it is: don't negotiate with the U.S., it's a trap that will literally kill you. The great irony of the man who sold himself as a dealmaker is that he taught the world one thing: don't make deals with my country. Link to the article: economist.com/by-invitation/…

Thread 1/ The holy sites in Jerusalem have been shut down due to restrictions imposed by Israel on public gatherings. The issue has generated a highly charged debate regarding the motives behind the closure. I don't want to engage in that polemic right now. Just some facts

1/ Denmark was reportedly preparing for full-scale war with the US over Greenland in January, with military support from France, Germany, and Nordic nations. Elite troops and F-35 jets with live ammunition were sent, and runways were to be blown up to prevent an invasion. ⬇️

Fossil fuel price shocks are redistribution shocks. Last time, we warned windfall profits would benefit the ultra-rich at the expense of everyone else. This time, there is no excuse. The numbers are in. We need windfall profit taxes & multilateral price caps now.

A brief summary of last night’s events: A. Iran emerged with the upper hand. It demonstrated once again that it will not hesitate to raise the level of escalation to defend its strategic assets — without any retreat on the issue of the Strait of Hormuz. This was entirely predictable. B. Yet another indication that this war lacks a coherent, pre-planned strategy. Once the regime did not collapse early on, it is no longer clear what the overarching strategy actually is. C. Trump was aware of the strike, but chose to look the other way once tensions escalated. This reflects an ongoing gap between Washington which may still be interested in preserving a future-facing Iran and Israel, whose approach appears aimed at systematically degrading the country’s entire infrastructure. D. The strike itself seems to have been driven by frustration: Iran is not yielding, and there is a desire to force outcomes (such as opening the Strait of Hormuz) without committing ground forces — and before external pressure brings the campaign to a halt. E. The strategic failure so far leaves Trump facing a difficult choice: escalate dramatically, potentially including boots on the ground, or move to stop the campaign now. F. At this stage, the fundamental questions remain unanswered: What is the ultimate objective? What are the exit ramps? What does success even look like? G. Instead, the conflict is drifting into a war of attrition — with no clear signs of regime collapse in Iran. Meanwhile, the president, having committed to the idea that Iran has effectively capitulated, may find it difficult to disengage while facing a visible disadvantage in the maritime arena and no resolution to the nuclear issue. Bottom line, last night’s events underscored just how unstructured this campaign has become — lacking strategic clarity, long-term planning, and a defined end state. At the same time, they exposed growing gaps between Israel and the United States, gaps that may widen further if similar outcomes repeat. And as always..just because something is operationally feasible does not mean it is strategically wise. One more point that must be stated clearly — Iran is not close to capitulating. #IranWar‌

‼️ There it is: