5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Israel, Oil, and Megalomania Are Behind Trump's Iran War
Why did Trump suddenly move so sharply in favor of war in his second term, turning against his popular base and his promises of no new wars? In an interview, historian David N. Gibbs offers some answers.
Mar 30, 2026
The world’s two major rogue states, the US and Israel, attacked Iran on February 28, 2026 by using an imaginary threat to overthrow the Iranian regime and hoping in turn to install in its place a “friendly” government. There is no end to war in sight after one month as Iran hasn’t lost the capacity to retaliate and there has been no rebellion inside Iran. Moreover, there are very strong indications that the US is preparing for ground operations in Iran, a move that, if it materializes, will unleash hell in the neighborhood and beyond.
In the interview that follows, renowned historian David N. Gibbs describes the war against Iran by the United States as a prime example of the “extraordinary subservience” on the part of President Donald Trump to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. The Butcher of Gaza had long hoped to drag the US into direct military confrontation with Iran and has finally succeeded doing so. But the interviewee also points out that Trump may have had in mind objectives of his own when he decided to go to war with Iran.
David N. Gibbs is a professor of history at the University of Arizona, who specializes in political conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, and Afghanistan, as well as US economic history. His most recent book is Revolt of the Rich: How the Politics of the 1970s Widened America’s Class Divide.
C. J. Polychroniou: David, as the Iran war rages on and threatens to engulf the entire Middle East region and beyond, I want to start by asking you to reflect on the following. The first Trump administration proved to be less warlike than both the Obama and Biden presidencies. Why do you think Donald Trump is pursuing such a bellicose foreign policy during his second term?
David N. Gibbs: One of the most striking features of Donald Trump’s second presidential term is the belligerent, violent stance, much harsher than what was seen in his first term. This has been true across the board, from the streets of Minneapolis to the Caribbean and Greenland; and now very dramatically in the Persian Gulf. This is a pure war of aggression, since Iran presented no imminent security threat to the United States or to Israel, as intelligence specialist Joseph Kent, who recently resigned from the Trump administration, has made clear. Accordingly, the war is a violation of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits wars of aggression not authorized by the Security Council. Trump has also violated the US Constitution, which stipulates that international treaties that are signed by the United States—such as the UN Charter—form part of “the supreme Law of the Land.”
In launching war against Iran, Trump II is acting very much like previous presidents from both parties. He is following in the grand tradition of the US president as war maker. Consider George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was equally reckless and destructive, producing enormous costs in both dollars and lives, with no security benefits whatsoever. And yet it was backed by both parties, with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) acting as a loyal supporter of the war. The extraordinary subservience that Trump is now displaying toward the Netanyahu government—despite his promises of “America First”—also follows a long tradition of pro-Israel activities by previous administrations, since at least the 1970s.
Trump’s desire for national greatness through war dovetailed nicely with the neocon idea.
And there have been many more cases of disastrous US interventions, besides Iraq, including the violent regime change operations against governments in Libya and Syria, with negative consequences for both the inhabitants of those countries and for regional security. In 2014, US officials helped to overthrow the elected government of Ukraine, thus destabilizing the country and laying the groundwork for a later war with Russia (and in doing so, they violated the Charter of the Organization of American States, which prohibits all forms of external intervention). In the 1990s, NATO bombing campaigns in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo augmented the scale of human suffering, while US officials blocked negotiated settlements that could have settled these conflicts through peaceful means.
Consider too the weaponization of economic sanctions by US presidents, which over the past 50 years have killed many millions of innocents, according to one recent study. American officials in previous administrations have shown remarkable callousness, when queried about the deadly effects of sanctions. While his bizarre communication style is unique among recent presidents, Trump’s penchant for violence is not unique.
It should be emphasized that Trump’s newly aggressive foreign policy seems fundamentally different from what we saw in his first term: In the first term, Trump showed many disturbing tendencies, including the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and the breaking of a perfectly viable US-Iranian agreement that limited Iranian nuclear enrichment. What Trump did not do in his first term was start any new wars, and in this respect, the first Trump presidency stood out historically. Many on the left bristle at this idea—but the fact is that first term, Trump was indeed one of the least warlike presidents since 1945.
Why did Trump suddenly move so sharply in favor of war in his second term, turning against his popular base and his promises of no new wars? My best guess is that Trump—in his instinctive megalomania—wanted to be not merely a two-term president, but also a great president, comparable to Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a war-winning leader fit for Mount Rushmore. Other motives included a desire to enhance US control of world oil, to be used as an instrument against challengers, such as China; to open up through force new investment opportunities for US companies; to enable old-fashioned corruption of the type that almost always is associated with war and covert operations; to please the ubiquitous Israel Lobby; and to distract from Trump’s embarrassing associations with Jeffrey Epstein. On balance, however, I assume that Trump’s quest for greatness loomed large in his decision to wage war.
Obviously, Trump’s aim for Mount Rushmore is failing, as his glorious war against Iran is already producing political and economic disaster. The preparations for war seem remarkably superficial, in a way that is once again, reminiscent of past wars. Recall the numerous failures associated with the War on Terror. What most impresses me most about the Iran war is how similar it seems to past US foreign adventures.
Polychroniou: The MAGA era was defined by isolationism and rejection of the neoconservative fantasy of remaking the world in America’s image. Is it accurate to say that the Trump administration has reverted to a neocon foreign policy?
Gibbs: Neoconservatism emerged during the 1970s, in response to the US military humiliation in Vietnam. Having studied the private papers of neoconservatives at Stanford University and elsewhere, I view the neocon ideology as a form of pro-military extremism, which glorifies overseas US interventions as inherently desirable, based on the experience of Israel. The neocons openly admire the military accomplishments of the Israel Defense Forces, who aggressively attack their adversaries. And the IDF does not apologize or express regret about their aggressiveness. In the eyes of neocons, the IDF points the way to how America should behave in the world arena. Since they first emerged half a century ago, the neoconservatives have gradually become the dominant foreign policy perspective in both US parties.
You are correct that in the first presidential term, Trump resisted the neoconservative agenda of relentless militarism and was publicly critical of the neocons. Many prominent neocons moved away from the Republicans and toward the Democrats, beginning in 2016. However, Trump has now pivoted to a neoconservative strategy, especially in his war against Iran. He has finally jumped on the bandwagon. In executing this pivot, Trump is responding to two pressure points: First the neocon idea is so pervasive that it is difficult to find policy specialists who are not active neocons. In the present Trump cabinet, Marco Rubio—who is both secretary of state and national security adviser—has always been in the neoconservative camp and has emerged as the main shaper of policy. And secondly, Trump’s desire for national greatness through war dovetailed nicely with the neocon idea.
For Trump’s base, I sense exhaustion with the prospect of permanent war. There is a realization that we have been spending too much on guns, too little on butter, and Trump was initially seen as the solution to this problem. When Trump backers use the term “America First,” many of them mean that we should focus on improving living conditions here in the United States, while reducing our emphasis on global power projection. Trump’s abandonment of the America First agenda is already producing splits within the Trumpian coalition, which are sure to grow as the war becomes a fiasco. These political splits will become even more dramatic if (or more likely when) Trump decides to insert US ground forces into Iran, and American casualties mount.
Polychroniou: It’s quite obvious that both the US and Israel miscalculated Iran’s response to war. The US and Israeli air campaign has decimated Iran’s political and military leadership, but the regime is still intact and there has been no Iranian uprising. Indeed, Trump has gone from “we’re winning the war” and “we won the war” to asking for help from NATO allies. How likely is it that we will see a US military ground invasion of Iran?
Gibbs: US interventions are often associated with the idea of “mission creep,” whereby small interventions inexorably grow into larger interventions. This happened in Vietnam on a large scale, where relatively small numbers of US military advisers gradually evolved into a massive ground war over many years, with disastrous consequences.
The most important accomplishment of the Iran war will be heightened nuclear danger.
We are seeing this same pattern play out in Iran, whereby Trump’s fantasy of a quick win, through “decapitating” the Iranian leadership—murdering their leaders—has failed. The Islamic Republic, despite its numerous weaknesses, has proven more durable that many had imagined. I do not see any immediate likelihood of a ceasefire or a compromise settlement, since the Iranians have no incentive to compromise. They have been attacked by Israel and the United States twice in only a matter of months, first in June 2025 and now again. And, as John Mearsheimer emphasized, Iran now holds the upper hand on the battlefield.
In the absence of any compromise settlement, Trump will be tempted to land US ground forces in Iran, first on a limited scale, perhaps on Kharg Island, then followed by larger and larger numbers of ground forces. What we are clearly seeing is a growing military and economic quagmire of immense proportions.
Polychroniou: Nuclear weapons haven’t been used in wartime since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. I fear that the Trump administration may not hesitate to make use of nuclear weapons against Iran if it realizes that it’s going to lose this war. Do you have such concerns? And in the event that the worse case scenario unfolds, what might be Iran’s own response?
Gibbs: One clear effect of US military aggression over the years has been to accelerate nuclear proliferation, as more and more countries conclude that the only way to deter US aggression is to acquire nuclear weapons. Many will look to the North Koreans, who adopted a nuclear strategy—complete with long-range missiles—and are thus protected from attack. Another case worth considering is Libya, under Muammar Gaddafi, who gave up nuclear ambitions in exchange for a tacit understanding that the United States and its allies would not overthrow his government. Then, in 2011, the US and NATO took advantage of Libya’s weakness and violently overthrow the government, with Gaddafi being tortured to death.
The obvious result of this history is that more and more countries will consider developing nuclear weapons of their own, beginning of course with Iran. And the coming wave of proliferation will heighten the risks that nuclear weapons will be used, thus endangering global security. The most important accomplishment of the Iran war will be heightened nuclear danger.
One of the most disturbing features of contemporary politics is the absence of any real antinuclear movement in the United States or anywhere else. During the Cold War, the antinuclear movement was huge, and fear of nuclear war was integrated into the popular culture, as a constant source of anxiety. When the Cold War ended, however, the antinuclear movement disappeared without a trace, and people now seem unworried about the very real dangers of nuclear war. The political left in particular seems completely uninterested, and I am baffled to understand why.
Polychroniou: What Can We Do About It?
Gibbs: In the short term, we on the left must set aside our petty prejudices and form a broad anti-war coalition, including people on both the left and right who oppose what Trump is doing in Iran and permanent war more generally. And let us revive an antinuclear movement, while we are at it. There is clearly a large and growing anti-war movement on the right, and smart leftists should not hesitate to work with them. Let us forget the culture wars for one moment and focus on the horrors of real war.
Keep Reading
Show Less
The 3 Phases of Trump's Quagmire in Iran
Trump’s defenders argue that his contradictory actions are strategic. It’s more likely that panic has him flailing. His gut instinct led him to make a colossal mistake, and he has no idea what to do next.
Mar 30, 2026
President Donald Trump launched the Iran war based on his “gut instinct.” Global financial markets—the North Star that guides Trump—are telling him what his advisers and congressional Republicans won’t: His “gut” blew it badly, and his efforts to appease the markets are making the debacle worse.
He has proceeded in three phases. We’re now at the Trump panic phase.
Phase No. 1: Trump’s Gut Was Wrong and the Markets Scolded Him
Trump ignored the facts and relied on gut instinct to launch the war without making the case to America’s allies or the public:
We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first.
Trump’s baseless opinion contradicted the justification for war that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had provided to Congress a day earlier. Rubio said that Israel was going to attack and that Iran would retaliate by attacking US interests in the region.
Even worse, Trump ignored long-predicted consequences:
- Iran attacked neighboring countries aligned with the United States;
- It closed the Strait of Hormuz to the US and its allies, disrupting one-fifth of the world’s oil supply;
- The global price of oil surged from $72 per barrel to more than $100 per barrel;
- Because Iran’s major source of revenue is oil—accounting for 35% of its federal budget—Trump funded the enemy’s war chest; and
- Global financial markets plummeted.
Phase No. 2: Trump’s First Effort to Calm Markets Helped Putin
Trump’s initial assurance that the war would be over in “four to six weeks” offered the markets only sporadic and temporary relief. So he started down the slippery slope of eliminating longstanding sanctions on Russian oil.
Oil and natural gas are Russia’s most important sources of revenue, accounting for 30% to 50% of the federal budget. Sanctions had forced Russia to charge India $22 per barrel in January, putting Russian President Vladimir Putin’s economy on an unsustainable path. But on March 5, Trump issued a 30-day waiver allowing India’s purchases from Russia.
Trump’s waiver was a boon to Putin, but the global price of oil kept rising and the markets kept falling.
Phase No. 3: Trump Panicked and Made Matters Worse
On March 11, Trump released 172 million barrels from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve—the world’s largest supply source of emergency crude oil. But the oil would not make a dent in the global market, would take 120 days to deliver, and would leave the Strategic Reserve at its lowest level since 1982.
The price of oil kept rising, and the markets kept falling.
On March 13, over the objections of the European Union, Trump removed sanctions on Russian oil that was already at sea. It was another gift to Putin, but the price of oil kept rising and the markets kept falling.
On March 20, Trump lifted sanctions on 140 million barrels of Iranian oil “currently stranded at sea.” In addition to providing Iran with $14 billion windfall, his action contradicted Trump’s contemporaneous claims that he had “won” the war and was considering “winding it down.”
As Brett Erickson, managing principal at a firm that specializes in financial crime and regulatory issues, observed: “You don’t unsanction Iranian oil if you’re winding down. This is the action of an administration that has no exit ramp and knows it. The word for that is desperation.”
Meanwhile, the price of oil kept rising, and the markets kept falling.
Trump’s panic became clear on Saturday, March 21, when he threatened to commit a war crime:
If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!
By Monday morning, the price of oil was skyrocketing and Asian and European markets were sinking. Shortly before the US stock market opened, Trump panicked again. He withdrew his threat and said that because the US and Iran had held “productive” talks, he was postponing the attack on Iranian’s energy infrastructure for five days.
The price of oil dropped more than 10%, and global markets soared. Meanwhile, it appeared that insiders with knowledge of Trump’s planned announcement made hundreds of millions of dollars in pre-announcement bets that crude oil prices would decline.
But then Iran’s foreign ministry denied Trump’s assertion about settlement talks, although through intermediaries the US and Iran had exchanged messages that “appeared to be short of negotiations.”
Within a day, the price of oil resumed its upward climb and the financial markets fell.
Panic begets panic. On March 26, Trump announced a 10-day extension to April 6 of his prior threat to commit a war crime by attacking Iran’s energy facilities. He asserted that settlement negotiations were proceeding while at the same time issuing contradictory statements about his war plans:
The Iranians “were begging for a deal,” but “they better get serious” and “talks were going very well.”
He wanted US allies to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, but didn’t care if they refused.
“We already won the war,” but Trump was massing more than 50,000 US troops in the region and threatened a ground assault on Iran’s main oil production facility.
He “may or may not” use the military to secure Iran’s uranium.
Trump’s defenders argue that his contradictory actions are strategic. It’s more likely that panic has him flailing. His gut instinct led him to make a colossal mistake, and he has no idea what to do next.
Worst of all for Trump: The financial markets are finally on to him.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Zero Waste Doesn’t Work Without Environmental Justice
As the zero waste movement continues to grow, it must center environmental justice and the communities who have had to bear the greatest burden of pollution.
Mar 30, 2026
Zero waste is often framed as an idealistic goal: a world without trash, pollution, or environmental harm. But like aiming for zero traffic fatalities or zero preventable diseases, zero waste isn’t about perfection; it’s about striving for measurable improvement. At its core, zero waste asks us to rethink how we produce, consume, and conserve our resources as well as how we dispose of our waste. Because right now, that waste does end up somewhere, and too often that somewhere is in Black, Indigenous, and brown communities.
Zero waste is about generating little to no waste through strategies such as waste reduction, composting, recycling, and industrial redesign, among others. Not only do these strategies support the reduction of waste, but they also lead to more resilient cities and communities, social equity, and healthier environments.
Although the zero waste movement has grown substantially in recent decades, it continues to be challenged (rightfully so) by those who see it developing into the next “organics” movement—a movement that once prioritized providing healthier food options only to those who can afford them at a premium. Thus, leaving many communities (mostly Indigenous, Black, and brown) without options for fresh food produced with increased standards and no added synthetic substances.
But similar to the organics movement, zero waste concepts have been around for generations and are deeply rooted in various cultures around the world. The irony is that these same communities being left out are the ones that have the greatest ancestral knowledge associated with producing organic food through their generational fights against colonialism, white supremacy, and capitalism.
The communities most impacted by the waste crisis are also leading the way toward solutions.
Historically, Black, brown, and Indigenous peoples have acted as stewards of our natural environment, but have been the most impacted by pollution. Policies like redlining have further concentrated polluting facilities, including waste facilities, in Black, brown, and Indigenous communities. In the United States specifically, the environmental justice (EJ) movement was birthed through various industrial fights against the siting of landfills and incinerators in mostly Black and brown communities.
Since 1982, the small community of Afton, located in Warren County, North Carolina, has often been referred to as one of the birthplaces of the environmental justice movement, as the local community fought against a new hazardous waste landfill. This low-income, rural, and majority Black community became responsible for the first arrests in US history over the siting of a landfill. Unfortunately, the people of Warren County lost the battle, but many considered this to be the first major milestone in the national movement for environmental justice.
It wasn’t just the community of Afton fighting against the siting of waste infrastructure. Indigenous, Black, and brown communities across the country were being inundated with industrial and toxic waste zoning, and the federal government knew this. In fact, this pattern was confirmed by a 1983 analysis by the US General Accounting Office, which concluded that most commercial waste treatment plants or waste dumps were more likely to be found near Black communities than near white communities.
These industries know these communities lack the resources and capacity to fight back to protect themselves. They even developed whole reports on this topic. The 1984 “Cerrell Report” was a document commissioned by the California Waste Management Board, which advised that waste incinerators be sited in low-income, rural, and Black and brown communities solely because these areas were deemed to have the least political resistance and capacity to oppose industrial projects. These communities are most impacted by waste policies and are often targeted by the waste industry for further development. The end result of this is decades of underinvestment, coupled with extreme health disparities and negative social impacts.
The communities most impacted by the waste crisis are also leading the way toward solutions. Across the country, communities are composting, reusing, and practicing zero waste as acts of resistance against systems that profit from landfills, incinerators, and other polluting facilities.
After more than a 30-year fight, community activists in Detroit finally shut down the city's incinerator in 2019. The facility was referred to as a “bad neighbor” due to it being a major source of air pollution, emitting pollutants like sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, mercury, and cadmium throughout the surrounding communities. Recognizing local legislators believed the incinerator was the best way to handle the city’s waste, local activists took it upon themselves to develop a backyard community composting program to show not only that zero waste was possible in Detroit, but that community members wanted it and had bought into this idea.
Seven years later, the City of Detroit’s Office of Sustainability launched its first-ever Community Compost Pilot Program with a goal of diverting over 80,000 pounds annually of food waste from landfills and incinerators. If it weren’t for the initial efforts from community members, the City of Detroit would likely still be burning its trash to this day.
And, it's not just Detroit. Activists in California closed down the last two incinerators in the state in favor of developing new zero waste policies. Specifically, they targeted the vast amount of public tax subsidies that were being used to prop up the incinerator industry, as incinerators are incredibly inefficient and expensive to operate. Instead, that money is now being directed toward real zero waste solutions such as waste reduction, composting, recycling, and industrial redesign, among others.
In addition to closing the facilities of the past, EJ communities have now begun influencing the facilities of the future through the development of new statewide landfill methane regulations. The states of California and Colorado have both recently updated their landfill methane regulations to include stronger protections for vulnerable communities and higher accountability for the waste sector. Many of these recommendations came directly from EJ communities suffering the most from the impacts of landfills.
This is only a small snapshot of the hundreds of communities across the country working to demonstrate that community-led zero waste strategies can reduce emissions, reduce waste, and reduce harm. From Louisiana to Oregon, from Maine all the way to California… Practical solutions to our waste and climate crisis already exist, and as the zero waste movement continues to grow, it must center environmental justice and the communities who have had to bear the greatest burden of pollution, too often for generations.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Will Nightmare Trump Take the Entire Planet Down With Him?
Here we are, living through the worst imaginable version of science fiction with a literal madman as president. The country elected him not once, but twice. A science-fiction writer could not have thought of it, though perhaps a master of horror could have.
Mar 30, 2026
Honestly, I can’t believe I’m in this world of ours (or do I mean His?). Yes, this very one and no other!
Almost a quarter of a century after, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. launched its war in Afghanistan that would last a mere 20 years until Donald Trump prepared for and Joe Biden carried out a humiliating withdrawal of the last American troops there, the U.S. is back big time, dumber and more wildly destructive than ever.
Whew! That’s a lot of (terrible) history to get into a single sentence!
And so, here’s a TomDispatch question for you: What four-letter country, the first three of which are IRA, has the U.S. now been bombing? No, not Iraq! That war began in 2003 and ended a mere eight years later in 2011. And remind me, how did that work out? It’s Iran, of course.
And what a nightmare that is! By now, everyone who didn’t vote for Donald Trump (and even some who did) knows that he’s an all-American maniac. In his own striking fashion, the former “president of PEACE” has undoubtedly, even proudly, taken possession of the label: the most dangerous man on Earth. And believe me, on this planet of ours right now, that’s no small accomplishment. (Think Vladimir Putin for a start!)
And given that he has almost three years (3 years!!) to go in his presidency (if all goes well and he doesn’t nationalize the American electoral system and run for a distinctly unconstitutional and unprecedented third term in office), everything we’ve seen so far is undoubtedly just a prologue to a future from hell! (And yes, sad to say, at this point we are indeed in the second exclamation-point presidency of Donald J. Trump on an exclamation-point of a planet, itself going downhill all too fast.)
Of course, anyone — and, for that matter, any people — can make a mistake. And electing Donald Trump president the first time around might once have qualified as exactly that.
But no longer — not when, having just missed in 2020 with 46.9% of the vote, he won again in 2024 with 49.8% of American voters backing him.
Of course, at some level, we shouldn’t be shocked. For so many years, the United States was simply the most powerful country on Planet Earth, an imperial #1 of a sort that arguably hadn’t been seen in history. But sooner or later, all great imperial powers do go down. If you don’t believe me, just check any history book. That’s beyond predictable.
What’s been unpredictable is that the United States would begin going down quite so wildly and, as a first in history, that “our” president would distinctly try to take the planet itself down with him. So, here we are blasting the hell out of Iran and, of course, in the process, as all wars do, putting wildly more fossil fuels into the atmosphere. Modern war and preparations for them may, in fact, be the most carbon intensive activity on this ever warming planet of ours.
Of course, century after century, great powers have experienced decline, but seldom have their leaders been quite such a personification of imperial decline as Donald Trump. Yes, the self-proclaimed “president of PEACE,” who campaigned in 2024 on the promise that he’d “break the cycle of regime change,” is now distinctly the president of WAR, leaving the rest of us not in a Dump-Trump, but all too sadly in an increasingly dump-truck of a world.
The “Con Job” Presidency
If, once upon a time, you had told me about a world in which Donald Trump would be president of the United States (twice!), I would have thought you a genuine nut case. And worse yet, he has proven to be anything but alone in his madness. I mean, how could there possibly be a war in its fifth year right at the edge of the European heartland, another in Lebanon, a third in Iran (and mind you I’m not even mentioning Gaza), and a major civil war underway for endless years in Sudan on a planet that already seems to be going down the tubes in a big-time fashion? (And, mind you, I’m not even counting the never-ending American bombing of Somalia!)
How could all of that be happening on a planet already (all too literally) heating to the boiling point thanks to what’s come to be known as climate change (itself far too mild a term for what’s going on)? How could all of that be happening when it’s no secret that wars and militaries (even in peacetime) release staggering amounts of fossil fuels into the atmosphere — and my own country’s military tops them all? (And honestly, in this world of ours right now, it’s hard to write anything without exclamation points!!) As Nina Lakhani of the Guardian has reported, that military is “the world’s largest institutional greenhouse gas emitter” and “the largest single fossil fuel consumer in the U.S.”
You might wonder how that could be possible, when it’s become all too apparent that making war on each other, while a nightmare in itself, is also the worst imaginable way of making war on this planet of ours.
Honestly, how could we Americans have elected — not once, but (yes again!) twice — a president who rejects the very idea that this planet is beginning to broil from the burning of staggering levels of fossil fuels and has openly called climate change a “con job“? And worse yet, he remains deeply indebted to the fossil-fuel industry, which poured at least $96 million into his 2024 reelection campaign and an estimated $445 million into influencing the total election. He might indeed not have won the presidency without their donations, and now, undoubtedly as his thank-you to the industry, he’s doing everything he can to take our future away from us by, among other devastating things, trying to halt projects that spread non-fossil-fuel-producing solar and wind power. Truly, how could 49.8% of Americans have reelected a president who ran for office the third time (with a bluntness almost beyond imagining) on the all-too-incendiary campaign slogan “drill, baby, drill“?
A president of the United States, really?
Honestly, don’t you think that everything I’ve written so far reads like the world’s most unbelievable science fiction novel? And once upon a time, I can assure you (as a former editor in mainstream publishing), no publisher would have ever agreed to put out a book with a plot so pathetically unrealistic and, had it by some miracle — or rather ill omen — appeared, every imaginable reviewer would have panned it mercilessly and few readers would have thought to buy it.
In truth, if, once upon a time, some sci-fi writer had come up with such a plot, he (or she) would have been laughed out of the profession and off this planet. Donald Trump, president of the United States (twice!)? Give me a humongous break! How distinctly unrealistic could any author be in creating such a bizarre character as The Donald, no less coming up with a plot in which he would win the presidency not once, but twice?
And how about, on a planet where there may be no greater broiler than military operations, that very president deciding to launch a new war almost randomly against — yes! — Iran, which has already spread across the region (with, of course, a helping hand, or rather a panoply of bombs and missiles, from Israel), while creating a global oil crisis linked to the largely blocked Strait of Hormuz? I mean, imagine that! Or rather, no need to imagine it, since it’s our reality and Donald Trump is distinctly trying to create a dump-truck (rather than dump-Trump) world.
Living on Borrowed Time and Possibly the Wrong Planet
And so, here we are, all of us, already living through the worst imaginable version of science fiction with a literal madman as president, who seems distinctly intent on nothing less than doing in this planet and so all the rest of us, or at least all too many future us-es.
And under the circumstances, no one should be faintly shocked that 2023, 2024, and 2025 were the three hottest years in recorded history, while the El Niño weather pattern expected to emerge later this year is essentially guaranteed to drive global temperatures to new records in 2026 and 2027. And as Jonathan Watts of the Guardian recently reported, “Climate breakdown is shrinking the amount of time that people can safely go about their lives, according to a study [by scientists from the Nature Conservancy] that shows a third of the world’s population now resides in areas where heat severely limits activity.”
And just to emphasize how strange things truly are these days, imagine this: the country doing the most on this planet when it comes to putting some limits on climate change is — yes, of course, China. As a start, it’s now producing and selling solar panels, wind turbines, and other green energy-producing materials globally in a distinctly record fashion. It has also captured the electric vehicle (EV) market, lock, stock, and barrel, selling millions of those vehicles in more than 150 countries and territories, which should, of course, be truly commendable. And yet, to put all of that in a little Trumpian perspective, China still produces more greenhouse gases (mainly from burning coal) at this very moment than anyplace — yes, anyplace! — else on Planet Earth and an estimated 35% of the total. How beyond strange, beyond science fiction, beyond fantasy, beyond anything someone might once have imagined.
Of course, give him credit. At almost 80 years old, Donald Trump’s own level of energy is somewhat remarkable. And it’s also true that, when it comes to destroying our lives, climate change is just one of the areas he’s taken up with such alacrity. After all, we’re talking about the president who appointed vaccine skeptic (and that’s putting it politely) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his secretary of health and he’s been hard at work trying to ensure that Americans will get vaccinated ever less frequently and sicker ever more often. (Fortunately, a Massachusetts district judge only recently “blocked the government from implementing a series of decisions on vaccines made over the last year” by Kennedy and crew.)
I have to admit that, at almost 82 years old myself, having covered so much of this at TomDispatch for almost 25 (increasingly strange) years, I do have the feeling that I’m living not just on borrowed time (because of my age) but increasingly on the wrong planet. And for that reason — if you’ll excuse my repeating myself — I find it no less hard to believe that a near majority of Americans voted in 2024 for You Know Who a third time around.
So much that Trump and crew have done should be considered the political, environmental, and cultural equivalent of putting a gun to all our heads and pulling the trigger. In truth, his name should undoubtedly be changed from Donald J. Trump to Donald D. Trump — “d” for decline, of course. So, give the whole crew of them credit. Thanks to Trump, Kennedy, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and all too many other strange characters, this country and this planet are both heading down in a remarkably distinctive fashion.
And it’s hard even to imagine that we still have almost three more years of Trumpiana ahead before — well, under the circumstances, who knows what? There can be no question that he and his crew are indeed hard at work trying to create a dump truck (rather than a dump Trump) version of this world of ours. Sigh…
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular