This rather bizarre article, whose essence is captured in the following satirical comment from a reader, is worth trying to decipher so as to work out: WHO is trying to do WHAT to WHOM?
Here is the satirical comment:
Sex, Lies and Trump Tapes says:
I think I got it worked out now….
Rubio said that Netanyahoo attacked Iran and that the US then immediately attacked Iran because Iran was imminently going to attack the US because Netanyahoo attacked Iran and Iran was imminently going to retaliate against the US. Does that simply mean that Netanyahoo could not be stopped by the US because Netanyahoo had already grabbed Trump by the pssy while Epstein was working for him and collecting dirt on Trump? What I can’t work out is just who the US Congress is working for given that its honourable members are going along with the show as if it were something kosher.
Here is the article, comments on it, and comments on the comments
https://cairnsnews.org/2026/03/07/trump-attacked-before-iran-nuked-america-saving-millions-of-lives/
The discussion between Crypto Rich and Tom Luongo is a discussion between two eccentrics, one of them (Tom Luongo) impressively conceited and self-confident and both of them clearly influenced (not necessarily directly) by the late Lyndon Larouche and his cult, who regard Trump as a convert to their mission and see him as intending to break the hold of the City of London over the United States. They think that Trump is using Netanyahu and that Netanyahu does not have a hold over Trump.
One of the commentators on the article clearly does not see U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran as a prelude to the US marginalizing the City of London or, more generally, “the British”, but rather the opposite:
https://www.youtube.com/watchv=2m4uaxokz68
(A British poke in the eye for Trump.)
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, here is my contribution (also in the comments):
If the US had wanted to destroy an enemy nation’s nuclear arsenal they could have done so when the Soviet Union disintegrated:
https://againstthecurrent.org/wayne-hall/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-weapons-and-representative-democracy/1806
Yanis Varoufakis sits down with David Marr to reflect on the war on Iran, the failures of the Democracy in Europe Movement, cancelling his appearance at Adelaide Writers’ Week and being charged with promoting drug use for admitting to taking ecstasy at Sydney Mardi Gras nearly forty years ago.
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/yanis-varoufakis-iran-war/106421524
If, as it seems, the president of the United States takes orders from Israel, this makes Israel today’s arch-imperialist power, which is strange insofar as Israel apparently, alone, among history’s successive hegemonic powers, is uniquely lacking in an ideological justification with something approaching plausibility for external, and not just internal, consumption. To be God’s chosen people can surely be flattering and praiseworthy only to those who can see themselves as included in this category. Does this mean that such an imperialist power can rely only on blackmail to maintain its position?
The first of the European powers to seek hegemony over the New World was Portugal, whose supremacy was quickly challenged, with the assistance of the Dutch, by Spain.
Here is a timeline, presented by Robin Blackburn in his book “The Making of New World Slavery” (p.9)
“The theory of empire which the Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch and English came to expound appealed to God-given rights, but with interesting differences of emphasis. The Portuguese emphasized their rights as “discoverers”, not so much of the land as of the sea-routes between Europe and the newly discovered coast; Portuguese captains were required to register navigational details of their discoveries as well as marking them with a stone cross. The Spanish monarch claimed to rule the Americas by a God-given right of conquest , so long as the ceremony of the ‘Requirement’ demanding peaceful submission had been observed. Supposedly the Aztec and Inca rulers, having failed to respond and having obstructed the Spaniards’ free movements, had been conquered in a ‘just war’. The French believed the Spanish ‘Requirement’ and conquest were a mockery of Christian behavior and violated the God-given natural rights of the indigenous peoples. The French, therefore, appeared in the New World as friends and allies of the natives, and supposedly established colonies only with their unforced consent. The Dutch asserted their right not simply as navigators but principally as traders; in contrast to the Iberian powers they believed that there was a God-given natural right of all to sail the high seas in pursuit of trade, and to the better life that commerce brought with it. Finally, the English laid stress on the fact that their colonists, as cultivators or “planters”, were making better use of the land than native hunters-and-gatherers or colonial rivals, and thus enjoyed Divine sanction.
This bare summary simply picks out the most salient feature in each imperialist ideology; in practice the various powers constantly sought to imitate one another’s successes and learn from their mistakes. But their competitive success naturally depends upon the resources and institutions each could dispose of. While the Spanish approach, at one extreme, was highly dependent on state initiative and control, the English formula, at the other, critically depended upon the initiative and competence of the colonists themselves, albeit within the terms of some royal charter or bequest. “
Fast forward to today’s would-be appropriation of “the global South” by a coalition headed by Russia and China, the formerly Communist allies and rivals. Is it a new characteristic of this latest effort for the imposition of global hegemony that it no longer seeks to implant its own language but most probably contents itself with taking over the language and culture of its predecessor, as Rome largely did before it? One question among the many.
Postscript
This is a message from Yanis Varoufakis, economist, former finance minister of Greece, author of numerous bestselling books and contributor to the Australia Institute Press’s latest book, A Time for Bravery: What happens when Australia chooses courage?
Hear from me firsthand in conversation with Australia Institute Deputy Director Ebony Bennett on Zoom, Wednesday 4 March, 11 AM AEDT.
Comment from W.H.
I participated in this online discussion, posting two questions to Yanis in the chat.
1. What is your attitude to the proposal of Professor Ian Brighthope for secession of Western Australia? https://cairnsnews.org/2026/02/27/labor-government-treats-states-like-cash-cows-milking-resources-starving-their-potential-time-to-secede/
2. Do you feel that it would be good for you and Liz Gunn to collaborate? (Is Yanis even aware of the existence of LIz Gunn?) Neither of these questions were noticed, much less answered. Yanis did however manage to include a comment on the value of “vaccinations” as public health measures.