Benedictus Qui Venit in Nomine Domini, Hosanna in Excelsis, part thirty-four

As I have discovered over the years, there are times when unexpected delays in completing a commentary work to the advantage of assuring that the information provided therein is as current as possible.

However, given all that is happening in the Middle East now, I suppose that no commentary can be truly up to date as the various social media posts and news reports keep providing ceaseless bits of information, which gets contradicted almost immediately by some other party involved in this totally unjust and unnecessary war.

Thus, the best that can be done in this current contemporary, I believe, is to summarize a few salient points, especially by providing information about that part of the current conflict that is immutable, namely, the Zionist bloodlust for killing non-Jews, destroying the infrastructure of neighboring countries, displacing millions of people from their homes that then get blown up by Israeli bombing, and making a concerted effort to deny these displaced people access to the regular flow of humanitarian aid.

First, to reiterate what I have written in the past three months, no casus belli existed to justify the onset of armed military hostilities on Saturday, February 28, 2026.

Second, without doubting the irrefutable fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a state sponsor of global terrorism and is committed the exportation of its leaders’ faithful adherence to the violent precepts of the blaspheming, pedophiliac, mass murdering false prophet named Mohammed, and thus has repressed and slaughtered its own people with a ready abandon, the government and military of the Islamic Republic of Iran posed no legitimate, no less, imminent, threat to the national security of the territory of the United States of America.

Third, the government of the United States of America has no authority in international law to demand that any other country, including Iran, relinquish the development of any weapon, including nuclear weapons.

Fourth, President Donald John Trump has given multiple explanations about why he undertook military action in the first place and then has contradicted those explanations without even recognizing that he had done as he honestly believes that everything he says is beyond question and that those who dare to question his policies or point out his inconsistencies are “nut jobs,” “losers,” “morons,” or “low IQ idiots.” Trump will never learn that his endless denunciations of his critics or opponents have alienated even some of his own supporters in the so-called “MAGA” movement as many people have tired of this stale insult-artist act after nearly eleven solid years of his harangues.

Fifth, Trump, who ran in opposition to endless foreign wars and regime change in the Middle East, has developed a bloodlust of his very own that has seen him threaten to send Iran back to the “stone ages, where they belong” if he ordered the American military to blow up Iran’s electric generating plants, oil depots, bridges, and other structures to cripple the Iranian economy for years to come.

Sixth, fresh off his lightning fast strike in Venezuela on Saturday, January 3, 2026, during which dictator Nicolas Maduro was seized and brought back to the United States of America on charges of drug trafficking, President Trump thought that he could achieve a an easy victory in Iran even though he had been warned by Vice President James David Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Daniel Caine that such was unlikely to be the case.

Seventh, even though the Iranian regime has illegally claimed control over the Strait of Hormuz, whose navigable waters are entirely within the territory of Oman, it is entirely unclear what Trump wants to accomplish by imposing a Naval blockade of the Strait.

Eighth, this is all the result of Donald John Trump’s unlimited confidence in himself and his judgment in defiance of any understanding of the Iranian leaders’ considering surviving all that their country has endured as a victory. This is yet another example of the Western blindness concerning the actual culture of other countries and the character of its people over the course of history.

Ninth, the unsteady, unsure, and mercurial nature of Trump’s decision-making has created a worldwide economic mess that has raised the cost of living here in the United States of America, a factor that might, if it remains the same or worsens, result in the members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the Judeo-Masonic naturalism of the “left” capturing control of both Houses of the Congress of the United States of America, which means nonstop impeachment efforts against Trump, the maniacal Secretary of War, Peter Hegseth, and other members of the administration.

So much for Trump’s naïve beliefs that the war with Iran would not turn into another mess such as the one from which Iraq, whose leaders have been more or less allied with their former enemy, Iran (Iraq-Iran War, 1980-1988), since the American invasion and occupation of Iraq came to an “official” end on December 15, 2011.

Tenth, Trump’s failure to critically assess the possibility that American military action might lead to a region-wide warfare that would its deadly toll upon thousands of innocent human beings is showing itself to be a dreadful miscalculation.

Consider the fact that the people of southern Lebanon and Beirut have been subjected to the same kind of genocidal treatment by the Israelis as have been the Palestinians and that the President of the United States of America has said not one word about the slaughter of over two thousand innocent Lebanese people and the destruction of their homes as Benjamin Netanyahu attempts to deal it the Hezbollah terrorists as it deal with Hamas terrorists: collective guilt upon all non-Jews for even living the near the terrorists, including the deliberate targeting of a clearly marked Red Cross medic’s ambulance:

A Lebanese Red Cross paramedic was killed by Israel today when a drone "directly targeted" a team, the organization said in a statement.

The paramedic, whom the organization identified as Hassan Badawi, was carrying out a mission in the town of Beit Yahoun in southern Lebanon when the drone attacked. Another paramedic was wounded, according to the Lebanese Red Cross.

"Prior to the mission, the necessary contacts had been made with UNIFIL to ensure protection and safe passage," the organization said, referring to the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.

The organization said the ambulances and their crews were also clearly marked by the Red Cross emblem.

NBC News asked the IDF for comment.

The Lebanese Red Cross said it "strongly condemns the attacks on its personnel as they carry out their humanitarian duties, adhering to fundamental principles, particularly neutrality, impartiality, independence, and humanity. This targeting is a continuation of clear and blatant violations of all provisions of international humanitarian law."

Israel rammed UNIFIL vehicles and restricted peacekeepers' movement, organization says

The U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon accused the Israel Defense Forces of ramming vehicles belonging to peacekeepers in southern Lebanon twice with a Merkava tank today, causing significant damage to one of them.

UNIFIL also said the IDF has fired “warning shots” in Bayada, Lebanon, over the past week, "striking and damaging clearly identifiable UNIFIL vehicles."

NBC News has asked the IDF for comment.

The IDF also "continually" blocked UNIFIL peacekeepers' movement in the area and vandalized organization headquarters recently, the organization alleged. That included damaging cameras the UNIFIL's headquarters in Naqoura and spray-painting its windows.

"Peacekeepers will remain in position and will continue to impartially report violations we observe to the Security Council," UNIFIL said in a statement. (Iran war live updates: Trump says U.S. will blockade Strait of Hormuz after peace talks fail.)

Beirut, Lebanon – On [Easter] Sunday evening, Georges, 44, was sitting on his balcony in Ain Saadeh, a predominantly Christian area east of Beirut, when his phone rang in his kitchen. He walked over to answer it, and just as he picked up, a loud explosion shook the building behind him.

Two US-made GBU-39 bombs crashed through the roof of the building directly facing his balcony, killing three people, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health. The deceased were Pierre Moawad, a member of the anti-Hezbollah, Christian party the Lebanese Forces, his wife, Flavia, and a visiting friend named Roula Mattar.

The victims of Israel’s bombardment and invasion of Lebanon have been overwhelmingly from the Shia Muslim community, including many who are not fighters of the Iran-backed Hezbollah group. On Sunday, the victims also included Christians, as well as Sudanese in a different attack, as Lebanon experienced one of its most brutal days since widespread Israeli attacks started in early March amid the US-Israel war on Iran.

Overall, Israeli attacks have killed some 1,500 people, including 130 children, in Lebanon, while more than 1.2 million have been forced from their homes.

As the attacks expand, so too do the fissures in Lebanese society. The country is becoming increasingly divided between those who blame Israel for relentlessly attacking Lebanon since October 2023, and those who blame Hezbollah for drawing Israeli wrath.

The latter have often taken out their anger on members of the internally displaced community. Many displaced people have said they are being discriminated against, regardless of whether they support Hezbollah.

“Even if [the attack in Ain Saadeh] was a mistake, the Israelis are not likely going to clarify why they struck there,” Michael Young, a Lebanon expert at the Carnegie Middle East Center, told Al Jazeera.

“The Israelis want to create a rift between the Lebanese communities and isolate the Shia community, and something like what happened yesterday is only going to reinforce that.”

‘Not precise… at all’

On March 2, Israel again intensified its war on Lebanon after Hezbollah responded to Israeli attacks for the first time in more than a year.

Hezbollah claimed that its attack was retaliation for the US and Israeli assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei two days earlier. A ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah had ostensibly been in place since November 27, 2024, despite more than 10,000 recorded Israeli ceasefire violations by the United Nations, and the killing of hundreds of Lebanese.

Still, Israel used Hezbollah’s attack as justification to expand its strikes across Lebanon and issue mass forced evacuation threats for the country’s south and Beirut’s southern suburbs, traditionally areas where Hezbollah enjoys strong support. As displacement grows, Israeli forces continue to battle Hezbollah in southern villages, and Israeli officials have declared their intention to expand their buffer zone and occupy southern Lebanon.

The European Union says the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem is “illegal under international law”, noting this was confirmed by the International Court of Justice in July last year.

The continued expansion of illegal settlements “severely undermines prospects for peace and the two-state solution”, the European External Action Service’s spokesperson said in a statement.

The EU called on the Israeli government to “reverse these decisions, to abide by its obligations under international law and to protect the Palestinian population of the occupied territories”.

It also said the EU remains committed to a “comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on the two-state solution in accordance with relevant UN Security Council Resolutions where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side-by-side in peace within secure and recognised borders”.

The European Union and its member states have continued to provide funding and other support to the Israeli government, despite voicing concerns about the illegality of Israel’s actions in occupied Palestine. (Iran war updates: Iranian delegation arrives in Pakistan for talks with US | US-Israel war on Iran News.)

Our colleagues at Al Jazeera Arabic report that Israel has carried out air attacks on the towns of Toul and Jebchit in the Nabatieh governorate in southern Lebanon.

There was no immediate confirmation from the Israeli military of the attack and there were no initial reports of casualties.

We will bring you more on these attacks as information emerges.

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has said that shelters for displaced people in Lebanon are severely overcrowded, with nearly half of the country’s public schools now functioning as reception centres.

“Needs in Lebanon exceed the available capacity,” UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters on Friday.

Up to 1.2 million people have been forced to flee their homes in Lebanon due to Israeli attacks, with about 140,000 of those sheltering in 680 shelters, according to the UNHCR.

About 250,000 people have crossed into Syria, including Syrians who fled to Lebanon during the Syrian war, as well as about “39,000 Lebanese who have sought refuge [in] Syria”, Dujarric said, citing UNHCR figures.

Death toll from Israeli attacks on Lebanon rises

Lebanon’s Health Ministry says at least 2,020 people have been killed and 6,436 wounded in Israeli strikes across the country since March 2.

Israel’s military has issued forced displacement orders for southern Lebanon up to the Zahrani River, about 40km (25 miles) north of the Israel-Lebanon border, as well as large swaths of the capital, Beirut.

We can now bring you more comments from the Israeli prime minister, who has released a video address on X.

Netanyahu promised that Israel’s military campaign against Iran “is not over” even though Israel has already made what he described as “historic achievements”.

“We hit them, we still have more to do,” he said. (Iran war live: US negotiators due to arrive in Pakistan for ceasefire talks | US-Israel war on Iran News. Also see (1) Update Iran war live: US military says it will block Iranian traffic in Hormuz.)

The murderous Zionists are deliberately targeting United Nations peacekeepers, ambulances, and other first responders in Lebanon to maximize the damage there while the Hezbollah, aping of their fellow Mohammedans in Hamas, exploit the suffering of those they claim to be defending in order to wreak their own terror attacks upon innocent civilians in Israel.

As noted so many other times before on this website, both the Zionists and the Mohammedan terrorists who oppose them have souls that are captive to the devil by means of Original Sin, a fact that is compounded by the hundreds of Mortal Sins in the objective order of things that further enslave them to the devil, who fires them up with the sort of hatred and rage against each other that they will consigned to suffering for all eternity in hell if they do not convert to the true Faith before they died, even though neither the Zionists or the Mohammedans are the least bit aware of this inescapable fact.

Neither President Donald John Trump nor Secretary of War Peter Hegseth are the least bit perturbed by the wanton Israeli slaughter of innocent civilians in
“Bibi” Netanyahu’s Captain Ahab-like quest to kill “Moby Dick” once and for all without realizing that they are only recruiting future terrorists from the ranks of children.

Eleventh, although the world’s attention has been riveted upon the United States of America’s “Operation Epic Fury” and Israel’s “Operation Roaring Lion,” to say nothing of his corollary “Operation Eternal Darkness” in Lebanon, the genocidal Zionists have continued to violate the Gazan ceasefire almost every day since that ceasefire was agreed to six months ago, including practically every day since February 28, 2026:

The United States and Iran agreed on Wednesday to a two-week ceasefire following 40 days of war, with talks set to begin on Saturday in Islamabad, Pakistan.

But since February 28, when Israel and the US began bombing Iran, Israel has also, on a near-daily basis, launched attacks on Lebanon, Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

While much of the world’s attention has been on Iran, here are three main things that you may have missed in Gaza.

Israel bombed Gaza on 36 of the past 40 days

Since the declaration of a “ceasefire” in the Gaza Strip six months ago, Israel has violated the agreement thousands of times, with attacks on a nearly daily basis.

Over the past 40 days, Israel has not only continued bombing Gaza, but has also closed the Rafah crossing and withheld life‑saving food and medical supplies.

According to an analysis by Al Jazeera, Israel has attacked Gaza on 36 out of the past 40 days, meaning there were only four days on which no violent attacks, deaths or injuries were reported in the Strip.

How many people has Israel killed in that time?

Between February 28 and April 8, Israeli attacks killed at least 107 people in Gaza and injured 342 others.

Since the “ceasefire” in Gaza took effect six months ago, Israeli attacks have killed at least 738 people and injured more than 2,000.

In total, since launching its genocidal war on Gaza, Israel has killed or injured at least 10 percent of the Strip’s population, killing more than 72,000 people, the majority of them women and children, and injuring at least 172,000 others, with thousands more buried under the rubble and presumed dead.

[Al Jazeera]

On Wednesday, as the world awaited the much-anticipated pause in attacks between the US, Israel and Iran, Israel killed another journalist in Gaza – Al Jazeera’s correspondent Mohammed Wiswash, who was killed in a targeted drone strike.

On the same day, Israel launched one of its largest-ever attacks on Lebanon in a single day, launching a wave of strikes that killed at least 254 people and injured 1,165.

Only 8 percent medically evacuated

On February 28, the day Israel and the US began strikes on Iran, Israeli authorities closed all crossings into Gaza, halting the transfer of wounded patients abroad and suspending medical evacuations.

Among them was Rafah crossing, Gaza’s sole gateway to the outside world through Egypt, which was supposed to open under the US-brokered 20-point ceasefire plan for the Strip. Based on the agreement, 50 patients per day, plus their companions – typically one or two per patient – were supposed to be allowed out of the enclave for treatment.

More than two years of Israeli attacks have left thousands injured and in need of urgent medical treatment. According to OCHA, more than 18,500 critical patients, including 4,000 children, require medical evacuations.

On March 19, Israeli authorities announced the resumption of limited medical evacuations through Rafah.

According to the Gaza Media Office, since February 28, 625 out of 7,800 travellers have been permitted to leave Gaza for treatment – about 8 percent of the agreed number.

[Al Jazeera]

Twenty percent of trucks allowed to enter Gaza

Israel has continued to limit urgent food and medical supplies, exacerbating severe shortages and deepening a humanitarian crisis.

According to the Integrated Phase Classification (IPC), the global hunger monitor, more than three-quarters (77 percent) of the population in Gaza are facing high levels of acute food insecurity.

Of the 1.6 million people analysed by IPC:

• 475,000 people are in Phase 2, food stress.
• 1,027,790 people are in Phase 3, food crisis.
• 570,980 people are in Phase 4, food emergency.
• 1,885 people are in Phase 5, famine.

According to the Gaza Media Office, since the US-Israel war on Iran began, Israel has allowed only 4,999 of the 23,400 trucks stipulated in the ceasefire agreement into the Strip – just one-fifth of the promised deliveries.

(Israel bombed Gaza on 36 of the past 40 days while the war raged in Iran | US-Israel war on Iran News.)

Moreover, the Israeli Knesset recently pass a special death penalty law applicable only to Palestinians who are accused of terrorism even though the only “terrorist” acts they are alleged to have committed consist of rhetorical opposition and/or peaceful resistance to the Israelis’ ongoing genocide and destruction of Gaza:

The Israeli Knesset’s passage last week of a law imposing the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of “terrorism” drew swift and sweeping international condemnation. It also sparked a general strike across the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, with Palestinians taking to the streets in Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron and elsewhere on April 1 to protest the measure.

Some local shop owners in the occupied East Jerusalem area reported that Israeli forces had coerced them into reopening.

A coalition of eight countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkiye, condemned the law as “discriminatory” and warned that it entrenches a system of apartheid. The European Union called it “a step backwards”. At the same time, United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Volker Turk went further, warning that its application to residents of the occupied Palestinian territory “would constitute a war crime”.

Demonstrations broke out not only across Palestinian cities, but also in Syria, including the cities of Damascus, Hama and Deraa.

The week’s political tensions unfolded against the backdrop of an ongoing siege on Jerusalem’s holy sites. Al-Aqsa Mosque has remained closed to Muslim worshippers for more than a month, with a state of emergency extended until mid-April.

Palestinians in Jerusalem have been holding Friday prayers in the streets surrounding the Old City as Israeli authorities continue to ban access to Al-Aqsa, contravening the sovereignty of the Islamic Waqf over the site under the custodianship of King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Israel has continued to display its de facto ultimate authority over the site. On Monday evening, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir stormed the compound under the protection of Israeli forces.

Restrictions also continued at Christian sites, as Western Christian denominations commemorated Holy Week. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest site in Christianity, remained closed to the public throughout Holy Week.

Gaza peace plan reaches impasse

In Gaza, the past week brought further evidence that the Board of Peace’s framework for reconstruction and governance transition remains far from implementation. According to the Reuters news agency, a Hamas delegation informed Egyptian, Qatari, and Turkish mediators in Cairo that the movement would not discuss disarmament until Israel ceased its violations of the ceasefire agreement and committed to a full withdrawal from Gaza.

“We will under no circumstances accept the surrender of weapons. We affirm that what the enemy could not seize from us through tanks and extermination, it will not take from us through politics or at the negotiation table,” the spokesperson for Hamas’s Qassam Brigades said, in a statement, released on Sunday.

Meanwhile, funding pledges for Gaza’s reconstruction from Gulf Arab states have been frozen as a result of the US-Israel war on Iran.

With the implementation of phase 2 of the October peace plan for Gaza appearing as remote as ever, Israeli air strikes ramped up across the Strip throughout the past week, according to documented reports published on the Telegram messaging app.

On March 31, strikes killed at least six people across Gaza, including three in Jabalia, and a father and son in Khan Younis. On April 3, a drone attack injured six civilians near the Abu Shurakh roundabout in northern Gaza. On April 4, a strike hit a vehicle near the Maghazi camp, killing one person and injuring several others. Israeli forces also struck a police checkpoint in northern Gaza City and continued artillery shelling across multiple areas.

And in the days since Qassam’s defiant statements, the civilian casualties in Gaza have quickly shot up. Early in the morning on April 5, three Palestinians were killed, while others were injured, in an air strike carried out by Israeli forces on al-Shawa Square, east of Gaza City.

Later that day, others were injured by Israeli military gunfire in the Mawasi area of Khan Younis, including a small child, who received a bloody head injury. A Palestinian man was then reportedly shot dead by Israeli soldiers while inspecting his home east of Gaza, followed by a military strike on a group of civilians near the Al-Jazeera Club in central Gaza City, killing one person and injuring others.

In all, Gaza’s Ministry of Health reported early on Monday morning that seven people had been killed and another 17 injured during the previous 24 hours.

Israeli forces reportedly shot dead another man east of al-Qarara on the morning of April 6. At least two Palestinians were killed in an air strike targeting an electric bicycle in Sheikh Radwan, leaving others, including a small girl, critically wounded, later in the afternoon. And then, in the early evening, Israeli forces and affiliated armed groups unleashed heavy gunfire in central Gaza’s Maghazi camp, killing at least 10 people and leaving dozens injured, according to local reports.

Not including the many casualties on April 6, since the October 11 “ceasefire”, at least 723 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed and 1,990 injured, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. Approximately 100 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran. In addition, a citizen died as a result of a building collapse, bringing the number of people in Gaza killed by building collapses to 29, according to the ministry.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation continued to deteriorate sharply as the entry of aid into the devastated Strip remains severely restricted by Israel. The Gaza Ministry of Health issued an urgent warning on April 2 that the complete unavailability of fuel in the local market poses “a genuine threat of death to hundreds of patients” in intensive care and those relying on neonatal incubators and dialysis units, while risking the spoilage of childhood vaccines and blood bank supplies. Long queues were photographed outside a single bread distribution point on al-Wehda Street in Gaza City.

The Gaza Center for Human Rights warned this week that approximately 71,000 tonnes of unexploded ordnance remain buried across the Strip, with seven people, including five children, already killed by unexploded munitions. More than 1 million people remain living in tents or in the open, with the Health Ministry warning of rising rodent populations and the risk of disease outbreaks, including plague and hantavirus.

Settler attacks and military raids continue across the West Bank

While this week saw a slight drop in the feverish intensity of settler attacks in the occupied West Bank that began with the launch of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28, the daily occurrences of settler violence, military raids and movement restrictions continued nonetheless.

The most serious attack took place on April 4, when more than 40 settlers – some armed, some on government-supplied Ranger ATVs – raided the villages of Jalud and Qusra, south of Nablus, attacking homes and residents. According to locals, when residents attempted to defend themselves, settlers opened fire.

Locals say Israeli soldiers reinforced the settlers rather than stopping them. Settlers then burned a farm and attacked firefighters who rushed to extinguish the blaze, severely beating one worker, Zahran Shanablah, 32, until he lost consciousness. The attack originated from the Jabel Ein Eina outpost – the same outpost from which settlers descended on Qusra on March 14 to kill a resident. The day before, settlers had cut off electricity to the village’s Ras al-Ein area and arrived with clubs when residents went to repair the grid.

Also on April 4, more than 40 settlers invaded Turmus Aya, north of Ramallah, attacking residents, damaging vehicles, and partially burning a truck before opening live fire on youths who confronted them.

In Masafer Yatta, in the southern West Bank, the pattern of settlers attacking shepherds and releasing livestock into crops – followed by soldiers detaining Palestinians rather than settlers – continued for multiple days in communities including Wadi Abu Shaban, Rujum A’li, and Sha’ab al-Batim.

In the village of al-Mughayyir, northeast of Ramallah, soldiers have been reported as closing the village entrance on a near-daily basis, beating and robbing residents during searches, and, on one occasion, deploying what local activists described as a nerve agent, causing residents, including elderly people and children, to lose consciousness. The nature of the gas employed remains unconfirmed.

Despite recent claims by the Israeli government of a renewed effort to crack down on settler violence and new settler outposts, particularly in Area B, the part of the West Bank under joint Israeli and Palestinian control, a new illegal settler outpost was established between Tayasir and Aqqaba, east of Tubas. Another outpost was set up on lands northwest of Sinjil in Area B, where soldiers have since barred farmers from their lands.

Also this week, the Israeli Civil Administration deposited a planning document that the Palestinian Authority’s Jerusalem governorate warned is designed to forcibly displace Bedouin communities east of Jerusalem, including Khan al-Ahmar, Abu Nuwar and Arab al-Jahalin, from their pastoral land into a confined urban settlement. The governorate described the plan as directly linked to the E1 settlement project connecting Maale Adumim to Jerusalem, and said it constitutes a “flagrant violation of international humanitarian law”.

In a separate legal development, an Israeli high court extended the administrative detention of Palestinian activist Rabia Abu Naim by a further three months – following an initial six-month period – without charge or trial. (Palestine weekly wrap: Protests sweep West Bank after death penalty law.)

Donald John Trump cares nothing about Israel’s slaughter of innocents in Gaza, Lebanon, or even Iran, for that matter, and Twelfth, he has  not uttered one word about Israel’s use of phosphorus bombs in Lebanon despite the harm that it does to human beings and the environments in which they live:

When the M825-series 155mm artillery projectile bursts, expelling its felt wedges containing white phosphorus, it leaves a distinctive knuckle-shaped plume. That is how Human Rights Watch (HRW) researchers said they were able to verify that Israel was again using the notorious weapon over south Lebanon, reigniting accusations that it is breaking the laws of war.

The New York-based rights group said it had verified and geolocated eight images showing airburst white phosphorus munitions exploding over residential areas in the southern Lebanese town of Yohmor in the opening days of Israel’s assault during the war on Gaza.

Since then, more videos have emerged purporting to show white phosphorus munitions exploding over south Lebanon, and researchers say that with 800,000 Lebanese people displaced from the region after Israeli forces ordered them to leave, many more uses may have gone undocumented.

In the last week, Israeli soldiers have been facing fierce resistance from Hezbollah fighters in south Lebanon, despite an intense bombing campaign. In recent days, Israeli forces have bombed roads, petrol stations, bridges and medical centres in an effort to cut south Lebanon off from the rest of the country.

White phosphorus is a chemical substance dispersed in artillery shells, bombs and rockets that ignites when exposed to oxygen, burning at up to 800C and emitting large quantities of smoke.
Israel used white phosphorus to scorch earth in south Lebanon, researcher says

Human Rights Watch and others say they have documented use of weapon in civilian areas during war on Gaza

When the M825-series 155mm artillery projectile bursts, expelling its felt wedges containing white phosphorus, it leaves a distinctive knuckle-shaped plume. That is how Human Rights Watch (HRW) researchers said they were able to verify that Israel was again using the notorious weapon over south Lebanon, reigniting accusations that it is breaking the laws of war.

The New York-based rights group said it had verified and geolocated eight images showing airburst white phosphorus munitions exploding over residential areas in the southern Lebanese town of Yohmor in the opening days of Israel’s assault during the war on Gaza.

Since then, more videos have emerged purporting to show white phosphorus munitions exploding over south Lebanon, and researchers say that with 800,000 Lebanese people displaced from the region after Israeli forces ordered them to leave, many more uses may have gone undocumented.

In the last week, Israeli soldiers have been facing fierce resistance from Hezbollah fighters in south Lebanon, despite an intense bombing campaign. In recent days, Israeli forces have bombed roads, petrol stations, bridges and medical centres in an effort to cut south Lebanon off from the rest of the country.

White phosphorus is a chemical substance dispersed in artillery shells, bombs and rockets that ignites when exposed to oxygen, burning at up to 800C and emitting large quantities of smoke.

Military forces use it as a smokescreen to mask troop movements, mark targets or illuminate terrain at night, and military lawyers argue such uses are entirely legitimate. But its use over civilian areas is controversial – and some claim illegal – because it ignites fires, causes serious burns and emits toxic fumes.

Ahmad Beydoun, an architect and PhD researcher at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, documented and mapped nearly 250 uses of white phosphorus by Israeli forces between October 2023 and November 2024, the last time they launched a full-scale attack on southern Lebanon.

Beydoun, who said his count was a conservative estimate, found that 39% of uses were in residential areas, 17% in agricultural lands and 44% in forested or open terrain. “I think the Israeli army’s thinking is that they use it to burn down fields for visibility, so that people or Hezbollah militants don’t hide under the trees,” he said.

According to a report by the Lebanese non-profit Public Works Studio, white phosphorus was used to burn more than 2,000 hectares (4,940 acres) of southern Lebanese countryside, “including 873 hectares of dense forest with gum trees and vast areas covered with oak and pine trees”.

White phosphorus can also lie hidden in the soil and spontaneously combust when uncovered by farmers, posing a continuing threat if the people of south Lebanon are able to return to their homes.

And the effects can also be systemic, the report warned, as repeated white phosphorus strikes saturate the soil with phosphoric acid along with toxic heavy metals such as cadmium, lead and zinc. Together, the report said, this accumulation “can reduce microbial diversity, deplete soil fertility [and] decrease agricultural productivity”.

A spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces said it could not comment on HRW’s claim that it used white phosphorus illegally over Yohmor. “There may be visual similarities between smoke shells containing white phosphorus and smoke shells that do not, and caution is advised before making factual determinations regarding use of smoke shells with white phosphorus in individual cases based on visuals alone,” the spokesperson said.

Last week Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, reportedly avoided responding directly to HRW’s allegations. “We do everything we can to minimise civilian casualties,” he said at a media briefing at the UN headquarters in New York, according to Anadolu Agency. “That’s why we actually asked the people from southern Lebanon, south of the Litani, to move to the north, to avoid civilian casualties.”

Beydoun said his findings suggested Israel’s military may be using white phosphorus “as a way to maybe start pushing people out” to create a “buffer zone” on the Lebanese side of the border.

“It’s just a practical tool to use to burn fields, I think it’s mostly that,” he said. “It’s mostly for scorching the earth.” (Israel used white phosphorus to scorch earth in south Lebanon, researcher says.)

Israeli forces unleash air strikes, artillery and phosphorus shells in south Lebanon

We have more on Israel’s air attacks on south Lebanon.

Moments ago, the National News Agency (NNA) reported that five people have been killed in the towns of Bazouriyeh, Nabatiyeh El Faouqa, Sir El Gharbiyeh and Choukine.

According to the NNA, there’s also been more attacks on the town of Bint Jbeil, a town that has been under sustained attack, as well as on the towns of Majdal Zoun and Bayt al-Sayyad in the Tyre district.

The agency said there’s been heavy artillery fire across the towns of Al-Haniyah, Al-Qalilah, Al-Mansouri and Beit Al-Sayyad, and that Zibqin in the Tyre district has come under artillery and phosphorus shelling.

Warplanes have also been attacking the town of Siddiqin in the same district, it added. (Iran war live: US military says it will block Iranian traffic in Hormuz | US-Israel war on Iran News.)

William Tecumseh Sherman had nothing on these moral monsters.

Then again, one of the American neoconservative war hawks who supports Trump and Netanyahu’s war with Iran, a columnist named Hugh Hewitt, recently invoked the mass murdering terrorist Sherman favorably in a column:

If James McPherson’s 1988 classic history of the American Civil War, "Battle Cry of Freedom," has been translated into Farsi, the remaining leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps may want to read it quickly, especially the chapters about General William Tecumseh Sherman’s two famous marches. 

The first was the fabled "March to the Sea" from Atlanta to Savannah. The second was the less well known but longer, more difficult and far more devastating for the locals march from Savannah to North Carolina, a march that ravaged the home of secessionist fanaticism, South Carolina, and did so in a way that the state’s people did not think possible given the geography of its marshy lowlands. 

Of course, America has waged and won wars against tyrants before, but we do not love to wage war. We have never been a conquering empire, but when necessary, our leaders have been ruthless when it comes to concluding war.

"If we can march a well appointed army right through Jefferson Davis’ territory," Sherman appealed to a skeptical General Ulysses S. Grant and President Abraham Lincoln, it would be "a demonstration to the world, foreign and domestic, that we have a power that Davis cannot resist."

"I can make the march and make Georgia howl," Sherman added to the doubters, Grant and Lincoln. Sherman was proposing something not done before in the long years of war to preserve the Union and free the enslaved — abandoning his lines of supply and living off the land his army would despoil.

Like Lincoln, Sherman "believed in a hard war and a soft peace," writes McPherson, and once approved by his chain of command, Sherman delivered on the "hard" in devastating fashion. 

"War is cruelty and you cannot refine it," Sherman said.

"It takes a simple, direct and ruthless man to wage war," wrote a different American general in a different war. (Sherman’s lesson for Iran: America’s ruthless power can end wars fast.)

The Just War Theory had no place in the mind of General William Tecumseh Sherman, who was a Catholic, mind you, and whose son James Ewing Sherman, became a Jesuit priest whose mortal remains are buried in the Jesuit Cemetery in Grand Coteau, Louisiana, and it has no place whatsoever in the minds of Donald John Trump or Peter Hegseth, to say nothing of the virulent Christophobe named Benjamin Netanyahu, who was denounced yesterday, Low Sunday, April 12, 2026, by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as another Hitler:

Turkey's president has strongly criticised Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stating he is “blinded by blood and hate,” as one of his ministers dubbed him a "Hitler of our time".

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also threatened to invade Israel due to its onslaught of Lebanon.

In a speech following the indictments against 35 top Israeli officials Mr Erdoğan said: “Had Pakistan not been mediating in the war between the US and Iran, we would have shown Israel its place. Just as we entered Libya and Karabakh, we can enter Israel.

"There is no reason not to do it.”

The officials, including Netanyahu, were charged with crimes against humanity which led to the Israeli prime minister saying Mr Erdoğan had “massacred his own Kurdish citizens” in a social media post.

Israeli defence minister, Israel Katz, who was also named in the Turkish indictments, described the Turkish premier as a “Muslim Brotherhood man”.

The latest tension between the countries comes as Mr Erdoğan warned Donald Trump of possible “provocations and sabotage” following the US-Iran ceasefire.

Both are reportedly fighting to become a pivotal regional power in the Middle East.

After the disagreements due to the ictments, the Turkish foreign ministry described Mr Netanyahu as “Hitler of our time” in a formal statement.

The notice, published on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, said: “An arrest warrant has been issued against Netanyahu by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Under Netanyahu’s administration, Israel is facing proceedings before the International Court of Justice on charges of genocide.”

The statement added that Mr Netanyahu’s objective was “to undermine ongoing peace negotiations [in Iran] and continue his expansionist policies in the region”.

“Failing this, he risks being tried in his own country and is likely to be sentenced to imprisonment." (Turkey brands Netanyahu 'Hitler of our time' as Erdogan threatens to invade Israel.)

Turkey is not going to invade Israel, of course, but Thirteenth, Communist China is aiding Iran during its military conflict with the United States of America and Israel:

China is preparing to deliver new air defense systems to Iran in the next few weeks, following over a month of U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran’s military and missile capabilities, CNN reported Saturday.

The outlet cited three people familiar with recent U.S. intelligence assessments. Two of these sources told the outlet that Beijing could route the shipment of the defenses through third countries to hide their place of origin.

President Trump told CNN, when asked about the intelligence assessments, that if “China does that, China will have big problems, OK?” He did not say if he has spoken with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who he is scheduled to meet with in early May.

The president’s summit with Xi, intended to focus on tariffs after the Supreme Court struck down the president’s tariffs, was pushed back due to the conflict with Iran.

Beijing will ship Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS), which are shoulder-fired anti-air missile systems, the sources told CNN. These weapons are intended for defense against low-flying aircraft.

A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington told CNN that China has “never provided weapons to any party” involved in the conflict with Iran. They urged “the U.S. side to refrain from making baseless allegations, maliciously drawing connections, and engaging in sensationalism; we hope that relevant parties will do more to help de-escalate tensions.”

Previous intelligence reports have indicated that China, along with Russia, has been supporting Iran with its presence and alliance with the Middle Eastern country.

Trump earlier this month referred to China, Japan and South Korea as countries that could send troops to the region to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. (China preparing delivery of new air defense systems to Iran, report says.)

This whole thing is a murderous mess and it was launched by President Donald John Trump after he was convinced by the self-serving master of Talmudic Christophobe Benjamin Netanyahu:

The black S.U.V. carrying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived at the White House just before 11 a.m. on Feb. 11. The Israeli leader, who had been pressing for months for the United States to agree to a major assault on Iran, was whisked inside with little ceremony, out of view of reporters, primed for one of the most high-stakes moments in his long career.

U.S. and Israeli officials gathered first in the Cabinet Room, adjacent to the Oval Office. Then Mr. Netanyahu headed downstairs for the main event: a highly classified presentation on Iran for President Trump and his team in the White House Situation Room, which was rarely used for in-person meetings with foreign leaders.

Mr. Trump sat down, but not in his usual position at the head of the room’s mahogany conference table. Instead, the president took a seat on one side, facing the large screens mounted along the wall. Mr. Netanyahu sat on the other side, directly opposite the president.

Appearing on the screen behind the prime minister was David Barnea, the director of Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, as well as Israeli military officials. Arrayed visually behind Mr. Netanyahu, they created the image of a wartime leader surrounded by his team.

Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, sat at the far end of the table. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who doubled as the national security adviser, had taken his regular seat. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who generally sat together in such settings, were on one side; joining them was John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director. Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy, who had been negotiating with the Iranians, rounded out the main group.

The gathering had been kept deliberately small to guard against leaks. Other top cabinet secretaries had no idea it was happening. Also absent was the vice president. JD Vance was in Azerbaijan, and the meeting had been scheduled on such short notice that he was unable to make it back in time.

The presentation that Mr. Netanyahu would make over the next hour would be pivotal in setting the United States and Israel on the path toward a major armed conflict in the middle of one of the world’s most volatile regions. And it would lead to a series of discussions inside the White House over the following days and weeks, the details of which have not been previously reported, in which Mr. Trump weighed his options and the risks before giving the go-ahead to join Israel in attacking Iran.

This account of how Mr. Trump took the United States into war is drawn from reporting for a forthcoming book, “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump.” It reveals how the deliberations inside the administration highlighted the president’s instincts, his inner circle’s fractures and the way he runs the White House. It draws on extensive interviews conducted on the condition of anonymity to recount internal discussions and sensitive issues.

The reporting underscores how closely Mr. Trump’s hawkish thinking aligned with Mr. Netanyahu’s over many months, more so than even some of the president’s key advisers recognized. Their close association has been an enduring feature across two administrations, and that dynamic — however fraught at times — has fueled intense criticism and suspicion on both the left and the right of American politics.

And it shows how, in the end, even the more skeptical members of Mr. Trump’s war cabinet — with the stark exception of Mr. Vance, the figure inside the White House most opposed to a full-scale war — deferred to the president’s instincts, including his abundant confidence that the war would be quick and decisive. The White House declined to comment.

In the Situation Room on Feb. 11, Mr. Netanyahu made a hard sell, suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic. . .  .

Mr. Netanyahu’s presentations — and Mr. Trump’s positive response to them — created an urgent task for the U.S. intelligence community. Overnight, analysts worked to assess the viability of what the Israeli team had told the president.

‘Farcical’

The results of the U.S. intelligence analysis were shared the following day, Feb. 12, in another meeting for only American officials in the Situation Room. Before Mr. Trump arrived, two senior intelligence officials briefed the president’s inner circle.

The intelligence officials had deep expertise in U.S. military capabilities, and they knew the Iranian system and its players inside out. They had broken down Mr. Netanyahu’s presentation into four parts. First was decapitation — killing the ayatollah. Second was crippling Iran’s capacity to project power and threaten its neighbors. Third was a popular uprising inside Iran. And fourth was regime change, with a secular leader installed to govern the country.

The U.S. officials assessed that the first two objectives were achievable with American intelligence and military power. They assessed that the third and fourth parts of Mr. Netanyahu’s pitch, which included the possibility of the Kurds mounting a ground invasion of Iran, were detached from reality.

When Mr. Trump joined the meeting, Mr. Ratcliffe briefed him on the assessment. The C.I.A. director used one word to describe the Israeli prime minister’s regime change scenarios: “farcical.”

At that point, Mr. Rubio cut in. “In other words, it’s “[garbage],” he said.

Mr. Ratcliffe added that given the unpredictability of events in any conflict, regime change could happen, but it should not be considered an achievable objective.

Several others jumped in, including Mr. Vance, just back from Azerbaijan, who also expressed strong skepticism about the prospect of regime change.

The president then turned to General Caine. “General, what do you think?”

General Caine replied: “Sir, this is, in my experience, standard operating procedure for the Israelis. They oversell, and their plans are not always well-developed. They know they need us, and that’s why they’re hard-selling.”

Mr. Trump quickly weighed the assessment. Regime change, he said, would be “their problem.” It was unclear whether he was referring to the Israelis or the Iranian people. But the bottom line was that his decision on whether to go to war against Iran would not hinge on whether Parts 3 and 4 of Mr. Netanyahu’s presentation were achievable.

Mr. Trump appeared to remain very interested in accomplishing Parts 1 and 2: killing the ayatollah and Iran’s top leaders and dismantling the Iranian military.

General Caine — the man Mr. Trump liked to refer to as “Razin’ Caine” — had impressed the president years earlier by telling him the Islamic State could be defeated far more quickly than others had projected. Mr. Trump rewarded that confidence by elevating the general, who had been an Air Force fighter pilot, to be his top military adviser. General Caine was not a political loyalist, and he had serious concerns about a war with Iran. But he was very cautious in the way he presented his views to the president.

As the small team of advisers who were looped into the plans deliberated over the following days, General Caine shared with Mr. Trump and others the alarming military assessment that a major campaign against Iran would drastically deplete stockpiles of American weaponry, including missile interceptors, whose supply had been strained after years of support for Ukraine and Israel. General Caine saw no clear path to quickly replenishing these stockpiles.

He also flagged the enormous difficulty of securing the Strait of Hormuz and the risks of Iran blocking it. Mr. Trump had dismissed that possibility on the assumption that the regime would capitulate before it came to that. The president appeared to think it would be a very quick war — an impression that had been reinforced by the tepid response to the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in June.

General Caine’s role in the lead-up to the war captured a classic tension between military counsel and presidential decision-making. So persistent was the chairman in not taking a stand — repeating that it was not his role to tell the president what to do, but rather to present options along with potential risks and possible second- and third-order consequences — that he could appear to some of those listening to be arguing all sides of an issue simultaneously.

He would constantly ask, “And then what?” But Mr. Trump would often seem to hear only what he wanted to hear.

General Caine differed in almost every way from a prior chairman, Gen. Mark A. Milley, who had argued vociferously with Mr. Trump during his first administration and who saw his role as stopping the president from taking dangerous or reckless actions.

One person familiar with their interactions noted that Mr. Trump had a habit of confusing tactical advice from General Caine with strategic counsel. In practice, that meant the general might warn in one breath about the difficulties of one aspect of the operation, then in the next note that the United States had an essentially unlimited supply of cheap, precision-guided bombs and could strike Iran for weeks once it achieved air superiority.

To the chairman, these were separate observations. But Mr. Trump appeared to think that the second most likely canceled out the first.

At no point during the deliberations did the chairman directly tell the president that war with Iran was a terrible idea — though some of General Caine’s colleagues believed that was exactly what he thought.

Trump the Hawk

Distrusted as Mr. Netanyahu was by many of the president’s advisers, the prime minister’s view of the situation was far closer to Mr. Trump’s opinion than the anti-interventionists on the Trump team or in the broader “America First” movement liked to admit. This had been true for many years.

Within the cabinet, Mr. Hegseth was the biggest proponent of a military campaign against Iran.

Mr. Rubio indicated to colleagues that he was much more ambivalent. He did not believe the Iranians would agree to a negotiated deal, but his preference was to continue a campaign of maximum pressure rather than start a full-scale war. Mr. Rubio, however, did not try to talk Mr. Trump out of the operation, and after the war began he delivered the administration’s justification with full conviction.

Ms. Wiles had concerns about what a new conflict overseas could entail, but she did not tend to weigh in hard on military matters in larger meetings; rather, she encouraged advisers to share their views and concerns with the president in those settings. Ms. Wiles would exert influence on many other issues, but in the room with Mr. Trump and the generals, she sat back. Those close to her said she did not view it as her role to share her concerns with the president on a military decision in front of others. And she believed that the expertise of advisers like General Caine, Mr. Ratcliffe and Mr. Rubio was more significant for the president to hear.

Still, Ms. Wiles had told colleagues that she worried about the United States being dragged into another war in the Middle East. An attack on Iran carried with it the potential to set off soaring gas prices months before midterm elections that could help decide whether the final two years of Mr. Trump’s second term would be years of accomplishment or subpoenas from House Democrats. But in the end, Ms. Wiles was on board with the operation.

Vance the Skeptic

Nobody in Mr. Trump’s inner circle was more worried about the prospect of war with Iran, or did more to try to stop it, than the vice president.

Mr. Vance had built his political career opposing precisely the kind of military adventurism that was now under serious consideration. He had described a war with Iran as “a huge distraction of resources” and “massively expensive.”

He was not, however, a dove across the board. In January, when Mr. Trump publicly warned Iran to stop killing protesters and promised that help was on its way, Mr. Vance had privately encouraged the president to enforce his red line. But what the vice president pushed for was a limited, punitive strike, something closer to the model of Mr. Trump’s missile attack against Syria in 2017 over the use of chemical weapons against civilians.

The vice president thought a regime-change war with Iran would be a disaster. His preference was for no strikes at all. But knowing that Mr. Trump was likely to intervene in some fashion, he tried to steer toward more limited action. Later, when it seemed certain that the president was set on a large-scale campaign, Mr. Vance argued that he should do so with overwhelming force, in the hope of achieving his objectives quickly.

In front of his colleagues, Mr. Vance warned Mr. Trump that a war against Iran could cause regional chaos and untold numbers of casualties. It could also break apart Mr. Trump’s political coalition and would be seen as a betrayal by many voters who had bought into the promise of no new wars.

Mr. Vance raised other concerns, too. As vice president, he was aware of the scope of America’s munitions problem. A war against a regime with enormous will for survival could leave the United States in a far worse position to fight conflicts for some years.

The vice president told associates that no amount of military insight could truly gauge what Iran would do in retaliation when survival of the regime was at stake. A war could easily go in unpredictable directions. Moreover, he thought there seemed to be little chance of building a peaceful Iran in the aftermath. . . . .

Mr. Cheung laid out the likely public relations fallout: Mr. Trump had run for office opposed to further wars. People had not voted for conflict overseas. The plans ran contrary, too, to everything the administration had said after the bombing campaign against Iran in June. How would they explain away eight months of insisting that Iranian nuclear facilities had been totally obliterated? Mr. Cheung gave neither a yes nor a no, but he said that whatever decision Mr. Trump made would be the right one.

Ms. Leavitt told the president that this was his decision and that the press team would manage it as best they could.

Mr. Hegseth adopted a narrow position: They would have to take care of the Iranians eventually, so they might as well do it now. He offered technical assessments: They could run the campaign in a certain amount of time with a given level of forces.

General Caine was sober, laying out the risks and what the campaign would mean for munitions depletion. He offered no opinion; his position was that if Mr. Trump ordered the operation, the military would execute. Both of the president’s top military leaders previewed how the campaign would unfold and the U.S. capacity to degrade Iran’s military capabilities.

When it was his turn to speak, Mr. Rubio offered more clarity, telling the president: If our goal is regime change or an uprising, we shouldn’t do it. But if the goal is to destroy Iran’s missile program, that’s a goal we can achieve.

Everyone deferred to the president’s instincts. They had seen him make bold decisions, take on unfathomable risks and somehow come out on top. No one would impede him now.

“I think we need to do it,” the president told the room. He said they had to make sure Iran could not have a nuclear weapon, and they had to ensure that Iran could not just shoot missiles at Israel or throughout the region.

General Caine told Mr. Trump that he had some time; he did not need to give the go-ahead until 4 p.m. the following day.

Aboard Air Force One the next afternoon, 22 minutes before General Caine’s deadline, Mr. Trump sent the following order: “Operation Epic Fury is approved. No aborts. Good luck.” (How Trump Took the U.S. to War With Iran.)

Benjamin Netanyahu and Peter Hegseth got their way, and a whole lot of innocent people are now dead, disfigured, or permanently displaced through the Middle East because of a preemptive war in defiance of the Just War Theory while the world’s economy suffers because of the interruption of the flow of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and the uncertainty of what the future will bring, and the man who enabled all this, Donald John Trump, lashes out at anyone who criticizes him while minimizing the effects of high gasoline, diesel, natural gas prices upon ordinary Americans:

President Trump suggested on Sunday that elevated gasoline prices in the United States might not fall before the November midterm elections, a prediction that continued his mixed messaging and underscored potential political headwinds facing Republicans in the fall.

Mr. Trump had long downplayed a sharp spike in gas prices driven by the war in Iran by casting it as a “short-term increase” that would subside within weeks. But on Sunday, Mr. Trump told Fox News that while he hoped gas and oil costs would drop before the midterms, prices “should be around the same” in November — and might be “a little bit higher.”

Earlier in the weekend, marathon talks between Iranian and U.S. leaders in Pakistan ended without a breakthrough. Oil prices rose after the negotiations foundered.

Strategists in both parties said on Sunday that Mr. Trump’s latest comments posed a challenge for Republicans, who are working to defend their majorities in the House and Senate, as an unpopular war drives up the costs of energy and goods. Douglas Heye, a Republican strategist, said Mr. Trump’s rhetoric was adding to Republicans’ headaches and making it harder for them to blame inflation on President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s administration.

“It’s a very big obstacle,” Mr. Heye said of the rising price of gas and other goods. “It was a big obstacle — that just got a little taller.”

When gas prices rise, the popularity of the president typically falls. And Democrats have made fuel costs a central part of their argument against Republicans for the midterms.

Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement that if Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance’s “midterm pitch to Americans is higher gas prices by Election Day, Republicans are in big, big trouble.”

Iran has choked off the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping corridor through which a fifth of the world’s oil and gas traveled before the war. On Sunday, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States was $4.13, according to AAA, the motor club, up more than $1 over the last two months.

The jolt to energy prices appears to be spilling across the economy: The overall inflation rate rose to 3.3 percent in March compared with the same time last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. The White House responded to the report by describing rising prices as “short-term disruptions.”

Mr. Trump told Fox News that he had told his economic advisers: “I’m sorry, fellas, we’re in great shape. We have to go and take a little journey down to Iran, and we have to stop them from having a nuclear weapon.”

“They all said: We agree,” Mr. Trump added.

Alex Conant, a Republican strategist, said Mr. Trump was caught in a bind and appeared to be “trying to reset people’s expectations.”

But “if gas prices are still $4 or $5 in November, it’s going to be very challenging for incumbents” in the Republican Party, Mr. Conant said, adding that the president would be wise “to get out of the prediction business.”

The offices of Republicans running in some of the most competitive congressional districts in the country expressed hope on Sunday that gas prices would fall soon, despite the president’s latest comments. (Trump Says Gas Prices Might Not Drop By Midterms, Highlighting G.O.P. Peril.)

President Donald John Trump had said six weeks ago that a “temporary” rise in energy costs would be a “small price to pay” for making sure that Iran could never get a nuclear weapon even though he had assured us ten months ago that the Iranian nuclear program had been obliterated.

As noted in the news report quoted just above, yes, gasoline prices are very determinative in American Congressional and Presidential elections.

However, very few people seem to care about the moral and supernatural costs of a war without a casus belli, without defined goals and thus without an understanding how to exit a conflict shaped with contradiction and inexactitude of strategies.

Speaking at Harvard University’s June 8, 1978, commencement ceremonies, the exiled Soviet dissident Dr. Aleksandr I, Solzhenitsyn explained that it is impossible to measure politics by the cost of a gasoline as it is far more important to assess how the materialistic West had become accustomed to a moral poverty that is far worse than any materialistic privation:

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth—imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: The split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one’s life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it. It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the president’s performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life? (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Center — A World Split Apart, June 8, 1978.)

It is not, however, some sort of generic spiritual revival by which human beings can rise above the much and mire of this world as true peace, that of the Prince of Peace Himself, Our Crucified and Risen Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, comes into the souls of men by means of the sanctifying offices of His Holy Catholic Church which are vivified by God the Holy Ghost, Who makes the graces won for us on Calvary present in the Sacraments and that flow into our souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, who is the Mediatrix of All Graces no matter what Robert Francis Prevost or Victor Manuel Fernandez believe and say.

Once again, it is Our Lady’s own Fatima Peace Plan and the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart will lead men and their nations out of the abyss of the anti-Incarnational world of Modernity and of the Modernism of the conciliar sect that is so very aligned with the globalists who desire a One World Order to which the One World Ecumenical Church will be completely subservient.

We do our part to build up Pope Pius XI called “The Peace of Christ in the Kingship of Christ” by every Rosary we pray and, among so many other devotions to which we must remain faithful but also pray for an increase of the Gift of Fortitude in our souls and to be ready to suffer martyrdom for the honor and glory of God, to make reparation for ours, and to provide a salutary example to others as did Saint Hermenegild himself:

It is through a Martyr’s palm-branch that we must today see the Paschal Mystery. Hermenegild, a young Visigoth Prince, is put to death by his heretical father, because he courageously refused to receive his Easter Communion from an Arian Bishop. The Martyr knew that the Eucharist is the sacred symbol of Catholic unity; and that we are not allowed to approach the Holy Table in company with them that are not in the true Church. A sacrilegious consecration gives heretics the real possession of the Divine Mystery, if the priestly character be in him who dares to offer Sacrifice to the God whom he blasphemes; but the Catholic, who knows that he may not so much as pray with heretics, shudders at the sight of the profanation, and would rather die than share, by his presence, in insulting our Redeemer in that very Sacrifice and Sacrament, which were instituted that we might all be made one in God.

The blood of the Martyr produced its fruit: Spain threw off the chains of heresy that had enslaved her, and a Council, held at Toledo, completed the work of conversion begun by Hermenegild’s sacrifice. There are very few instances recorded in history of a whole Nation rising up in a mass to abjure heresy; but Spain did it, for she seems to be a country on which heaven lavishes exceptional blessings. Shortly after this she was put through the ordeal of the Saracen invasion; she triumphed here again by the bravery of her children; and ever since then, her Faith has been so staunch and so pure, as to merit for her the proud title of The Catholic Kingdom.

St. Gregory the Great, a contemporary of St. Hermenegild, has transmitted to us the following account of the martyrdom. The Church has inserted it in her Second Lessons of today’s Matins.

From the book of the Dialogues of Saint Gregory, Pope.

King Hermenegild, son of Leovigild king of the Visigoths, was converted, from the Arian heresy, to the Catholic faith, by the preaching of the venerable Leander, Bishop of Seville, one of my oldest and dearest friends. His father, who continued in the Arian heresy, did his utmost, both by promises, and threats, to induce him to apostatize. But Hermenegild returned him ever the same answer, that he never could abandon the true faith, after having once known it. The father, in a fit of displeasure, deprived him not only of his right to the throne, but of everything he possessed. And when even this failed to break the energy of his soul, he had him put into close confinement with chains on his neck and hands. Hereupon the youthful king Hermenegild began to despise the earthly, and ardently to long for the heavenly, kingdom. Thus fettered, and wearing a hairshirt, he besought the Omnipotent God to support him. As to the glory of this fleeting world, he nobly looked on it with disdain, the more so as his captivity taught him the nothingness of that which could thus be taken from him.

It was the Feast of Easter. At an early hour of the night, when all was still, his wicked father sent an Arian Bishop to him, with this message, that if he would receive Communion from his hands, (the Communion of a sacrilegious consecration!) he should be restored to favor. True to his Creator, the man of God gave a merited reproof to the Arian Bishop, and, with holy indignation, rejected his sinful offer; for though his body lay prostrate in chains, his soul stood on ground beyond the reach of tyranny. The Bishop therefore, returned whence he had come. The Arian father raged, and straightway sent his lictors, bidding them repair to the prison of the unflinching Confessor of the Lord, and murder him on the spot. They obeyed; they entered the prison; they cleft his skull with a sword; they took away the life of the body, and slew what he, the slain one, had sworn to count as vile. Miracles soon followed, whereby heaven testified to the true glory of Hermenegild; for during the night, there was heard sweet music nigh to the body of the King and Martyr–King indeed, because he was a Martyr.

It is said that lights were seen at the same time burning in the prison. The Faithful were led, by these signs, to revere the body, as being that of a martyr. As to the wicked father, he repented for having imbrued his hands in his son’s blood; but his repentance was not unto salvation, inasmuch as, whilst acknowledging the Catholic Faith to be the true one, he had not the courage to embrace it, for he feared the displeasure of his subjects. When in his last sickness, and at the point of death, he commended his son Reccared, a heretic, to the care of Leander the Bishop, whom he had hitherto persecuted, but from whom he now asked, that he would do for this son what he had, by his exhortations, done for Hermenegild. Having made this request, he died, and was succeeded, on the throne, by Reccared, who taking, not his wicked father, but his martyred brother, as his model, he abandoned the impious Arian heresy, and led the whole Visigoth nation to the true Faith. He would not allow any man to serve in his armies, who dared to continue the enemy of the God of hosts by heresy. Neither is it to be wondered at, that being the brother of a Martyr, he should have become a propagator of the true Faith, for it was by Hermenegild’s merits that he has succeeded in reconciling so many thousands to the great God of heaven.

Pope Urban VIII composed the two following Hymns for the Feast of the holy Martyr: we unite them under one conclusion.

HYMN

The royal throne of heroic Iberia counts thee, Hermenegild, as one of its glories: so, too, do the Martyrs, whose love of Christ has numbered them among the Blessed of heaven.

How courageously didst thou keep thy promised allegiance to God! He was dear to thee above all things else; and as to the dangerous pleasures of this world, thou warily didst reject them.

Thou restrainedst the passions, which excite and foster vice. Thou marchedst onwards, with unfaltering step, to where the path of truth directs.

Thy father’s promises could not seduce thee. The luxuries of a life of ease and wealth, the glitter of diamonds, the prospect of a throne—they could not allure thee.

Thou wast not affrighted by the threat of a cruel death, or by the executioner’s merciless rage; for the everlasting joys of heaven were dearer to thee than those of time.

Do thou now kindly protect us from thy heavenly throne, and graciously receive the prayers we present to thee whilst celebrating the palm made thine by martyrdom.

To the Father, the Lord of all things, be eternal honor! Let the Faithful assembled here in prayer, glorify the Son; let them sing forth endless praise to the Holy Ghost. Amen.

We offer thee, O brave witness to the truth of holy Faith! our admiration and gratitude. Thy courageous death was proof of the love thou hadst for Christ; and thy contempt of earthly honors teaches us to despise them. Heir to a throne, a prison was thy abode here below. It was from thy prison that thou ascendedst to heaven, wearing on thy brow the laurels of Martyrdom—a crown far brighter than that which was offered thee on condition of thy apostatizing from the Faith. Pray now for us: the Church asks it of thee, by inserting thy name in the Calendar of her Saints. The Pasch was the day of thy triumph: obtain for us that this may be a true Pasch to us—a real resurrection, which may lead us to the heaven above, where we may enjoy, with thee, the sight of our Risen Jesus. Intercede for us, that we may be firm in the Faith, obedient to the teachings of holy Church, and enemies to every error and innovation. Protect Spain, thy fatherland, which owes to thy Martyrdom long centuries of loyalty to the true Faith. Pray for her, that she may ever continue to merit her glorious title of The Catholic Kingdom. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Hermenegild, April 13.)

The world suffers today for the sins of men who have forgotten and/or scoffed at the King of Kings Who suffered and died for us to reign with Him in the glory of the eternal kingdom, Heaven itself, and it is thus that we pray to Saint Hermenegild during this first week after Easter to usher in the day when the Triumph of Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will be manifest to all men everywhere as they exclaim una voce dicentes:

Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dóminus, Deus Sábaoth. Pleni sunt cæli et terra glória tua. Hosánna in excélsis. Benedíctus, qui venit in nómine Dómini. Hosánna in excélsis.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar, pray for us.

Saint Hermenegild, pray for us.