Congratulations to the University of Michigan men's basketball team on winning their second-ever NCAA title!

Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Here's a sentence that we never thought we'd write: There's a non-zero chance that, sometime today, the United States will launch a nuclear war.

For many years, we've believed that the only nation likely to do that was North Korea. And the primary basis for that belief was that North Korea is led by a madman whose interest in self-preservation could be a more powerful force than his concern about the consequences of a nuclear strike.

These days, there's a new madman in town. Two of them, really, if you include Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in addition to Donald Trump. They are desperate to win a war that was poorly conceived, poorly planned, and is now—predictably—going poorly. They don't have a lot of options for changing the course of the war, and they both seem to know that a ground invasion would be politically disastrous. Meanwhile, the United States' supply of conventional armaments is dwindling. Dusting off the supply of nukes would add a new "option" to the table. Trump and Hegseth are both the type of men who might see that option as a potential game changer.

And yesterday, Trump gave yet another unhinged press conference in which he turned up his threat-making to another new level. After reiterating a threat from Sunday evening that if Iran does not re-open the Strait of Hormuz, the United States would be "blowing up the entire country," he added that there is a plan "where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o'clock tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business—burning, exploding and never to be used again. I mean, complete demolition by 12 o'clock." Does that not sound like a description of a nuclear strike?

We're not the only ones to put the pieces together in this way. Here's reader A.A. in Branchport, NY, going through the argument in a bit more detail:

I hope I am wrong, but I think Trump is about to nuke Iran. At the very least, he is giving the prospect serious consideration:

1. They are not white.
2. They are disrespecting him by not caving.
3. He is incapable of dealing with the war daily.
4. He wants it OVER now!
5. They are godless and he is carrying water of evangelical Christians who are literally salivating at the prospect of the end of days.
6. His latest rhetoric states that he is going to end Iran.
7. His rhetoric has backed him into a corner politically. He cannot afford another TACO.
8. There is no one to stop him.

Sincerely hope I am wrong.

We hope this is wrong, too, but for the first time in many generations, this line of thinking is not crazy.

Plans for a nuclear strike would certainly also be consistent with the removal of the three high-ranking generals last week. "Sir, I will not accept an order to launch nuclear weapons" is exactly the kind of thing a military officer of conscience might say, and exactly the kind of defiance that would get them removed from command. One hopes that if "fire the nukes" is indeed the order, the next guy will also refuse, and will go public, so that the American people have some chance to express their views before Trump and Hegseth find their own Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper.

We'll add one other observation. Trump has been blustering and bloviating in Iran's direction for multiple weeks now, such that his words have ceased to have any real impact or meaning. But it's at least possible that all of this is not intended to get Iran to back down, and instead is meant to give Trump political cover. Shortly before the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, Harry S. Truman delivered the Potsdam Declaration, which included this threat:

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

Truman did not expect that the Japanese would surrender just because the leader of an enemy power did a little fist-waving, especially since Japan did not know about the nuclear devices at that point. Truman's only purpose was to be able to say, after Americans learned of the frightful destruction, "Hey, I gave them a chance, and they didn't take it." It is probably a little too much 3-D Chess for Trump to figure out this maneuver on his own, but one of his underlings might have suggested it to him. Certainly, the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, and the Trump Declaration of April 6, 2026, have much in common in terms of tone and content.

If Trump does decide to drop the third (and fourth? and fifth? and...) nuclear device to be deployed against an actual military target, we don't exactly know how the world will respond. There is no doubt the European allies will be furious, but Trump doesn't much care about them. They should have taken steps to re-open the Strait of Hormuz when they had a chance. As to Israel, that nation's government would certainly love to see Iran hit hard, but they would also be right in line to suffer from some of the nuclear fallout, and Benjamin Netanyahu might be unhappy about that. Meanwhile, for a long time, the primary deterrent against a U.S. nuclear strike was the likelihood that Russia would reply in kind. Would Vladimir Putin do so here, when it's a Russian client state that is being targeted as opposed to Russia itself? Especially since that response might open the doors to arming Ukraine with nuclear devices? We just don't know.

Domestically, we think that if Trump were to pull this particular trigger, it would be disastrous, far worse than putting U.S. troops into Iran. The war is already unpopular with 60% of the U.S. population, or so. Turning it into a nuclear war would not help with them, and it would likely drive some of the folks who are still MAGA but are also America First into the anti-Trump camp. Not to mention pretty much all remaining fence-sitters, fearful of living in a world where kids have to learn in school to "Duck and Cover." It is hard to imagine a development that could actually destroy the Republican Party for good, the way that opposition to the War of 1812 destroyed the Federalist Party. But if there is such a development, a nuclear war is probably it: "You Republicans knew he was a madman, you knew he was getting desperate, and you did not lift a finger. Now we have a nuclear war on our hands. A pox on all of you."

We could find out what the next step is sometime today. In theory, Trump's deadline for Iran to surrender is "Tuesday night." We are not sure if that's Tuesday night American time, or Tuesday night Iranian time. And, of course, there's always the possibility that Trump claims negotiations are going well, so he's generously decided to give an extension. On the other hand, Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine were supposed to brief the press on the situation in Iran this morning, and that event was canceled late last night, suggesting they will be busy today with... something. (Z)

On Extremism, Part I

There is little question, at this point, that in some MAGA/Republican circles, the Iran War has taken on the character of a holy war, or a crusade, or some other such religious conflict between "righteous" Christians (and Jews in Israel) and evil infidels. Heck, have you seen the AI-generated video posted by notorious Islamophobe Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN)?

We pointed out last week that Hegseth has also become fond of referencing the Crusades in his sermons to Pentagon staffers. We don't know how Marco Rubio feels about being lumped in with these two fanatics, though.

Last week, we also posed this query, specifically in response to the fact that 62 of 120 members of the Knesset had not only voted to re-instate the death penalty (but only for Palestinians), but that some of those members, like Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, were actually celebrating with champagne:

Beyond being members of different Abrahamic traditions, is there really all that much difference between Pete Hegseth, Itamar Ben-Gvir and, say, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? At best, they embrace extremely violent, grossly corrupted versions of the religions they claim to profess. At worst, they don't really believe at all, and are merely using their religion as a cloak to advance their political agenda.

We invited readers to tell us if we were on the right track with this, or if we were out in left field. And... we got a lot of responses.

As we noted this weekend, there were actually too many responses to do justice to them all in the Sunday mailbag, particularly since we also had all the responses to the Edsall piece. So, we said we'd share some of them during the regular week. Given that the U.S. might be about to launch a "Crusade" that is violent on a scale that Baldwin IV or Richard I could never have dreamed of, it is a particularly opportune time to have made that promise. Let's start with this, from reader S.S.R. in San Jose, CA:

Wow—I can only imagine the responses you're going to get for this inarguably true statement. Along these lines: As an American Jew who grew up in an extremely assimilated family in the 1970s, I understand why a Jewish State needed to be created but have no clue why we thought sticking it in the Middle East would be a good idea. Sure, centuries ago a group of folks believe they were given that land, but "strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."

Israel is a fait accompli today, so I don't propose moving it any more than I'd kick everyone off Manhattan island to give it back to the Native Americans who lived there.

I'll be fascinated to see how the comments break for this article.

We weren't sure what the response would be, either. We thought it possible they would break 50/50, or that the majority would be critical, especially given the responses to many of our Israel/Gaza pieces. As it turns out, though, nearly everyone who wrote in agreed with us. In particular, we heard from a sizable number of Jewish readers, so we thought we'd run some of those today:

M.R. in San Diego, CA, writes: Forgive the length, but this is something I feel strongly about.

By their actions, the folks now running Israel are showing themselves to be what we would call in Hebrew a chilul haShem (a "desecration of the Name of God"). Not only are they undermining the democratic character of the country, but they are corroding whatever claim Israel has had to being a state of Jewish values. Indiscriminate killings of civilians; restricting food, clean water, and healthcare; desecration of dead bodies; creating two sets of laws, one for Jews and one for non-Jews—all of these are clear violations of Torah obligations we call mitzvot.

Of course, the far-right proponents of these policies are called "religious." The "grossly corrupted" language you use for their brand of religion is right on the money. One can be exacting in religious ritual (refusing to touch a pen on Shabbat, lest you violate the prohibition of writing, say, or refusing to eat a blueberry because a tiny non-kosher bug may be hiding under its calyx), but also commit profoundly immoral acts. The Hebrew prophets speak at length about those who pray and offer sacrifices but then act corruptly. Isaiah, to cite one of countless examples, derides Israelites who use a fast day to be obsessed with their businesses and oppress their workers.

There was once agreement about the far-right parties in Israel. The followers of Jewish terrorist Meir Kahane were once prohibited from running for Knesset. The Netanyahu government changed all that. To the shame of diaspora Judaism, those of us who raised red flags about the inclusion of terrorist organizations in the coalition were scolded not to dissent; Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich weren't in charge of anything important, the "adults in the room" were setting policy, and the most important thing was to support Israel. All of our worst nightmares are now coming to pass, while too many establishment Jewish organizations in the U.S. look the other way.

Besides the human costs, the tragedy of these developments are the irreparable damage they've done to Jewish morality and identity. Jewish civilization is supposed to be immune to the ugliness of secular power, the fetishization of money, force and guns. Yes, Jews were subject to physical abuse and torture, but we always had the comfort of knowing that we had our insistence that all human beings were divine, our love of the stranger, our passion for justice, all the moral teachings at the core of Torah, what Nietzsche derisively called our "slave morality." Now the Israeli government commits atrocities while Trump's court Jew, Stephen Miller, declares that the "real world" is governed by strength, force, and power, and that "these are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time"—in the process, spitting on the laws of his own Torah. The heartbreak of these awful days is that we are now learning that, for some Jews, there is (as you wrote) "not really all that much difference" between the victims of Inquisition, Crusade, and Cossack and their tormentors.

---

J.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: In the interests of full disclosure, I am Jewish. Furthermore, I am 75 years old, and, for the first time in my life, the recent activities of Israel in the Middle East (Gaza and now Iran), have resulted in me being embarrassed by that country. The October 7, 2023, attack on Israel left most of the world sympathetic to them. It took Israel a matter of days to switch that sympathy to contempt. I have written to the Israeli embassy registering my embarrassment and dissatisfaction and, of course, have received no answer.

While I identify as Jewish, I am not terribly religious and very unconvinced about the existence of a deity. I have tried to follow the Golden Rule in my life but not because I feared offending said deity. I did it because that seemed to be the right way to live my life and the right way to treat other people, even those with whom I disagree.

In my time on this planet, I have observed that the people of the three Abrahamic religions (and probably others) have exhibited an inverse relationship between how religious they are or claim to be and their demonstrated decency as human beings. Ultraorthodox Jews in Israel indiscriminately kill Palestinians in their fields. The more orthodox Muslims carry out atrocities like 9/11. The orthodox Christians frequently act uncharitably to immigrants, even immigrants who are also Christian. It has become clear to me that as a general rule, those who trumpet their adherence to any of these religions the most and the loudest, follow the tenets of those religions the least. They seem to have learned nothing from the principles of the religions to which they claim they adhere. This has led me to believe that these religions do not effectively do what they should for society and what they claim to do. I realize that there are exceptions to this general rule, and I applaud them, but the religions fail to do their job all too often. Hence, their value to society is limited, and they are undeserving of the place they hold and the importance they wish to claim.

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: The most stark differences between the beliefs held by the male members* of almost all religious fundamentalist movements is generally found in what they say their G-d (etc.) told them to hit women with, how hard they say He commanded them to hit women with it, and which of the common sins women are wont to commit are valid reasons to go ahead and hit them.

---

S.E.Z. in New Haven, CT, writes: On the day before Passover you requested answers to the question "is there really all that much difference between Pete Hegseth, Itamar Ben-Gvir and, say, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?" While I don't like Itamar Ben-Gvir's politics, I choose to answer in the affirmative.

For starters, let's recall the definition of Godwin's law of Nazi analogies: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." We are headed in that direction when any Israeli trying to defend himself from the continuous threats posed by Israel's neighbors since the Jewish National Homeland declared independence in 1948 is compared to people like the Ayatollahs of Iran.

The Ayatollahs of Iran, and the Khamenei family in particular, have loudly and proudly advertised the fact that they want all Jews out of the Middle East, and that if the Jews don't find homes away from their National Homeland then Iran will, with joyful violence, rectify the problem. And their actions fit their words.

All Israelis I have ever heard of, Ben-Gvir and his allies included, are only asking for an end to the incoming missiles that threaten lives of all Israelis. Stop the missiles and the Israeli leaders will be satisfied. Satisfaction of Arab leaders merely requires "death to the Jews" and the Great Satan that supports them (you and me).

Yes, I see a difference there.

---

B.J. in Arlington, MA, writes: I was a strong supporter of Israel in the war that Hamas started. You didn't run several of the letters I sent in about it. That was unfortunate because I definitely tore many of the anti-Israel/anti-Jew arguments that others were making to shreds. That was then, this is now.

I have long been opposed to the death penalty in all cases. It is not that I think that there are never cases in which someone deserves it (though I'm not completely sure about that). My absolute objection is that if the death penalty is allowed in any cases, we know that it will be applied very unevenly and unfairly against disfavored minorities. As such, it is not justice, it is just another form of violent oppression.

If Israel's new law authorizing capital punishment only for Palestinians stands... that is beyond the pale. They will have lost me.

We'll have some more thoughts on this subject tomorrow. (Z)

One More Item on Edsall...

We just let Jewish folks share their views on an observation that we two gentiles made. How about we follow that up with a trans perspective on the articles that we two non-LGBTQ men wrote? We ran a bunch of responses to the Edsall pieces this weekend, but saved this one for the regular week. It's from one of our most frequent trans correspondents, A.B. in Wendell, NC:

Let me preface this by pointing out, for those few readers who may not know... I am a 30-years-out trans woman, having come out in 1995, fully transitioned in 1997, and post-op since 2002. I totally agree with what S.O.F. in New York wrote. Indeed, politics is the art of the possible. And no politician can ever deliver us social acceptance.

Let me also say that every day YOU face injustice is the longest day of your life. And I have 30 years now of very long days! I have, of course, had to choose my battles, and to decide what is worth fighting for and what is not. As an example, I currently work in a retail job with a relatively limited number of regular customers. I am graduating college next month, and am hopefully moving on to bigger and better things, but I digress.

I have one customer whom I have serviced regularly for over 2 years... who literally always "sir"s me. For what I currently do, there is no way in hell I am doing it in hose and heels, nor am I putting on a faceful of makeup that will melt off in ten minutes, and the job I do is mostly done by men (though I have two other female co-workers). I have gritted my teeth and ignored the "sir" until recently, because my time in my current job is now limited in duration, and I'm less willing to put up with, if you will pardon the expression, horse hockey. And I let this customer have it.

I told him, "Look, I have been serving you and giving you good service for 2 years. You cannot tell me in all that time you never once saw my name tag! If you cannot bring yourself to call me 'ma'am,' at least don't call me 'sir!' Just 'thank you, have a nice day' will do fine."

This is the art of the possible. I can't make this guy respect that I am female. But I CAN insist he not refer to me as a male, and inform him I find that to be highly disrespectful. My boss backed me on this one, by the way.

FWIW, I like (Z)'s suggestion that we advocate for what is possible. Because most reasonable Americans would agree that, in a capitalist country, one must have a livelihood, a home, the ability to obtain credit—and, frankly, needs a safe place for them to take care of nature's business in order to participate in public life.

We can correctly point out that laws already exist against lewd and inappropriate behavior in restrooms... and that being trans does NOT exempt us from those laws. In short, if we are breaking those laws, we deserve to be popped, and if we are just taking care of nature's business... leave us alone!

We can also say that laws are meant to protect from OBJECTIVE HARM, they are not meant to protect from SUBJECTIVE HARM.

We need to focus, right now on those parts of being trans which are essential to participation in public life and survival in a capitalist nation. If nothing else, we can point out that we trans are not going to simply curl up and die, much that some might wish it—and the resulting crime/imprisonment of trans that would result in making life as a law-abiding and productive member of society impossible would cost them a lot of tax dollars.

I dunno what the right answer is. I just know that I, for one, am tired of being everyone's favorite punching bag. I am tired of being a political bargaining chip, a political football and a scapegoat. I just wanna live the best life I can in peace and quiet... which is all most people want.

Thanks for rounding out the discussion, A.B.! (Z)

Political Bytes: If At First You Don't Succeed...

Time for another rundown of some of the second-tier political news from the last week:

...Try, Try Again: The White House has announced that, in the opinion of the Department of Justice, the 1974 Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional, and Donald Trump is free to take any paperwork he wants with him when he leaves office in 2029.

Our Take: Why does Trump want to do this so very badly that he's already making his plans? The only explanation is that he wants to sell state secrets, right? In any event, Trump beat the rap on this issue the first time because he drew exactly the right judge (Aileen Cannon) and because time to prosecute him ran out due to his re-election and re-inauguration. He is apparently going to do whatever he can to give the DoJ another bite at the apple, once it is run by people who are not Trump lackeys.

---

Tricky Dick: Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) is clearly a sleazeball, as news has broken he was carrying on an affair with a staffer, and exchanging lewd pictures and texts with her. No, not the staffer who took her own life. A different staffer.

Our Take: We can imagine an arrangement where both Gonzales and Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) are forced out or expelled, which would rid each party of an anchor around its neck without ceding anything in terms of the balance of power in the House (well, except that Gonzales would be replaced before Cherfilus-McCormick).

---

Roll, Jordan, Roll: Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who is a shark in wolf's clothes, senses that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has grown weak, and that there might be a chance to foment an insurrection and seize the gavel.

Our Take: We'll believe it when we see it. That said, if House Republicans really do choose a show horse like Jordan as their leader, it means two things: (1) They have no real interest in legislating, and (2) They expect to be in the minority as of January 4, and so need someone who is good at going on TV and complaining about the majority party. That is, after all, the main job of the House Minority Leader these days.

---

Youngkin in Da (White) House: This week, Glenn Youngkin, who has recently joined the ranks of the unemployed due to the end of his term as Virginia governor, has been doing interviews in which he says he still wants to serve, and he still has a lot to give, and he sure does respect Donald Trump. This is what auditioning for a Cabinet seat looks like.

Our Take: Any of the Cabinet members who are in the hot seat should be nervous, because Youngkin is a made-to-order fawning lackey. Just pop him in the microwave for 90 seconds and he's ready to go. He's not really qualified to lead Justice (no law degree) or defense (no military background), but since when have qualifications mattered to Trump? Well, there is one qualification, but Youngkin passes that test—he looks good on TV. Since the former governor is a finance guy, we'd guess that Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who is among the folks in the hot seat, is particularly vulnerable.

---

Close Call: Last week, there was a near-collision between a helicopter and a plane at John Wayne Airport.

Our Take: We don't know if the Trump administration has any actual responsibility here, but we know that this is happening often enough that the White House will get the blame nonetheless. That's likely doubly true when the incident happens at an airport named after a(nother) white supremacist Republican.

---

Deep Cuts: The current administration, along with its Republican backers in Congress, wants to cut taxes. That's what Republicans do. They also want to gut the IRS, so that rich tax cheats are less likely to get caught. This is also what Republicans do, at least these days. Turns out, the first goal (cutting taxes) and the second goal (gutting the IRS) are not always compatible. People need help understanding their tax breaks, and they can't do that if there's nobody at the IRS to answer the phone when they call with questions.

Our Take: Let's be honest, there's a lot of incompetence in this administration. But on the list "most incompetent," does anything top the idiots from DOGE? Seems like every cut they made has backfired.

---

The Key to Maine: The good people at NBC News have taken a long look at the upcoming Maine Senate primary between Graham Platner and Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME), and have figured out which voting bloc is going to swing the election. That bloc is—drum roll—women.

Our Take: Really? In an election featuring a man who's young and progressive but is kind of a bro versus a woman who's much older and more moderate and is a short-term officeholder at best, the roughly 60% of the Democratic base who are women is going to be decisive? Maybe if we practice writing this blog long enough, we can grow up to produce that kind of incisive analysis.

That's the news and we are outta here. (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger