We should be long past the point where Trump’s mad ravings distract us. But Trump’s Tuesday morning prediction of the “death of a whole civilization” was so horrific that even taking it at 1/1,000th of 1% of face value was cause for profound anxiety, concern, and national shame. As usual, Trump caved at the last moment, possibly agreeing to demands that will place Iran in a stronger position than it occupied prior to the war. (The latter point is uncertain and may remain so for some time as the parties work on a final peace agreement.)
Trump posted the following on Truth Social
In predicting that a “whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,”
Trump committed an international crime by threatening (or inciting) genocide as a negotiating tactic;
Irreparably injured the moral legitimacy of the US as a global leader;
Damaged the reputation of the US military as an institution that honors the law of war and the Geneva Conventions; and
Repulsed the people of America and the world with a threat so vile it was never uttered by the worst dictators and war criminals of the last 100 years.
Let’s be clear: Threateninggenocide (by inciting others to do so) is an international crime, and threatening the destruction of civilian infrastructure is a war crime.
For example, Article 51 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977) states the following regarding “Protection of the Civilian Population”:
The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
Sadly, some mainstream commentators are comparing Trump’s comments to “bluster.” See NYTimes, With Threat to Wipe Out Iran’s Civilization, Trump’s Rhetoric Goes Beyond Bluster. Nowhere does the Times’ analysis suggest that Trump is violating international law or committing a war crime. The closest the Times comes to that conclusion is to quote Tucker Carlson, as follows:
“It is vile on every level,” Mr. Carlson said on his podcast. “It begins with a promise to use the U.S. military, our military, to destroy civilian infrastructure in another country, which is to say to commit a war crime, a moral crime against the people of the country, whose welfare, by the way, was one of the reasons we supposedly went into this war in the first place.”
If ever there was a moment for the NYTimes to rise to the moment to condemn Trump’s reckless, unlawful threats, this was the moment. The Times’s failure to speak with moral clarity about Trump’s reprehensible comments will be a stain on its reputation forever.
There was one glimmer of hope in the twelve hours between Trump’s grotesque threat to the “whole civilization” of Iran and his surrender masquerading as a “cease fire.” Retired Army Major General Randy Manner told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that he heard second-hand reports that CENTCOM planners were quietly rejecting targets suggested by Pete Hegseth. See Mediaite, Ret. Major General Says He’s Been Told the Military Is ‘Already Saying No’ To Pentagon Higher-Ups.
General Manner said, in part,
The idea of attacking bridges that are clearly, overwhelmingly for civilian use would be a war crime, and that the planners in CENTCOM would not permit that. I have already indications that many targets that were recommended by the Secretary of Defense were rejected by CENTCOM, that they were civilian targets. It is something where, again, I don’t have firsthand knowledge. It’s secondhand knowledge. But I believe that people are already saying no to the hierarchy.
Trump and Hegseth have fired and excluded army lawyers from the planning of military strikes. So, it makes sense that the military commanders in charge of the combat missions in Iran—here, CENTCOM—would be the last line of defense against unlawful orders issued by Trump and Hegseth.
If General Manner’s second-hand information is true—with emphasis on “if”—it is reassuring that the professional military leaders are refusing to follow the unlawful orders by Trump and Hegseth.
Trump caved to Iran’s demands but is claiming victory.
The terms of the two-week cease-fire are uncertain as of Tuesday evening because there are four different versions of the cease-fire—one by Trump and three by Iran.
Trump announced the cease-fire on Truth Social. We can discount Trump’s version as false because Trump is an inveterate liar. Trump did his best to couch the cease-fire as a victory that reopened the Strait of Hormuz. Trump wrote, in part,
[W] herein [negotiators] requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double sided CEASEFIRE!
The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all Military objectives, and are very far along with a definitive Agreement concerning Longterm PEACE with Iran, and PEACE in the Middle East.
We received a 10-point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate.
Trump’s statement alleges that he secured the “complete, immediate, and safe” opening of the Strait of Hormuz. That statement was contradicted by all three statements issued by Iran, each of which stated that the Strait would open via “Controlled passage through the Strait of Hormuz coordinated with Iran’s armed forces.”
Note that Trump suggested Iran’s “10-point plan” was a “workable basis to negotiate.” Iran’s Supreme National Security Council published that 10-point plan, as follows:
Controlled passage through the Strait of Hormuz coordinated with Iran’s armed forces
The necessity of ending the war against all components of the resistance axis (including the militant group Hezbollah)
Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from all bases and positions in the region
Establishment of a secure transit protocol in the Strait of Hormuz, ensuring Iran’s control under the agreed framework.
Full compensation for damages to Iran.
Removal of all primary and secondary sanctions and relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the U.N. Security Council.
Release of all frozen Iranian assets abroad.
The adoption of all these provisions in a binding U.N. Security Council resolution.
Astute observers will note that the 10-point plan contains 8 points, as translated. That said, it is difficult to identify more than two points that the US will likely accept (the return of frozen Iranian assets abroad and the removal of sanctions).
The two points in the proposal regarding the Strait of Hormuz would put the Iranian military in control of the Strait. Press reports suggest that Iran will continue to impose a $2 million toll on ships transiting through the Strait of Hormuz. The toll has been in place since mid-March, and Iran is seeking to formalize its newly asserted right to collect tolls, with Oman acting as co-administrator of the “toll shipping lanes” in the Strait of Hormuz. See House of Saud, Iran’s Hormuz Toll Law Moves Toward Full Parliamentary Vote as Oman Co-Drafts the Enforcement Protocol.
Notably, the ten points say nothing about Iran’s uranium enrichment program, although one source is reporting that Iran is demanding the ability to continue that program. See Foreign Policy, U.S., Iran Agree to 2-Week Cease-Fire. (“The 10-point plan reportedly calls on the United States to withdraw combat forces from the region, lift all sanctions against Iran, permit the country to enrich uranium, compensate it for war damages, and allow it to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz.)
If Iran’s 10-point plan provides a “workable basis to negotiate,” it could leave Iran in a much stronger position than it was before the war vis-à-vis the Strait of Hormuz. That would be a major step backward for the US and the world.
The NY Times reports on how Trump blundered into the war.
The New York Times has remarkable first-person reporting on how Trump blundered his way into the war against Iran. See NYTimes, How Trump Took the U.S. to War With Iran. (Gift article, accessible to all.) We will be living with the consequences of Trump’s illegal war against Iran for decades; now would be a good time to understand how Trump’s advisers allowed him to make the biggest foreign policy mistake by any president in half a century.
In short, Trump is served by a skulk of cowards who have no personal convictions other than pleasing Trump. General Cain, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, limited his advice to “on the one hand, on the other hand.” Marco Rubio was a cipher. Susie Wiles was the room monitor. CIA Director Ratcliffe failed to apprise Trump of the on-the-ground realities of resistance in Iran and essentially took no position.
The one person who consistently advised Trump that the war was a bad idea was Vice President Vance. But even Vance said, “If you choose to do it, I will support you.”
In the end, Trump was persuaded by Pete Hegseth and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who “oversold” the ease of victory and regime change. It is their war—Trump, Hegseth, and Netanyahu. But it was aided by the silence, complicity, and incompetence of Trump’s cabinet members, who were picked because they have no spines or moral compasses.
Resuming my series of meetings with candidates
Earlier in the year, I began hosting Sunday conversations with candidates running for Congress in 2026. I was diverted from my plan by world and family events. I am now catching up on long-scheduled conversations. Last week, I interviewed Seth Bodnar, who is running as an Independent candidate for US Senate in Montana. Next Monday, I will host an event for Dan Osborne, also an independent, who is running for the US Senate in Nebraska.
In today’s edition, I include a conversation with Patrick Roath, who is running against incumbent Democrat Stephen Lynch in the 8th Congressional District in Massachusetts. I had originally planned to run this interview on a Sunday more than a month ago, but I am publishing it on a Wednesday to “catch up” on my promised conversations. Upcoming interviews include Jake Levine, who is running in CA 32 against incumbent Democrat Rep. Brad Sherman, and Charles Booker, who is running for US Senate in Kentucky.
A consistent theme in my interviews is providing exposure to newcomers who are challenging three-decade incumbents, progressive candidates with significant grassroots support, and independents who are trying to flip GOP seats in red states. I am happy to consider other candidates in contested Democratic primaries, which I view as a healthy and overdue development for the Democratic Party.
Patrick Roath has a strong background in public service and law. He graduated from Tufts University, worked in the Obama-Biden White House, served as an aide to former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and was a Fulbright fellow teaching English in Malaysia. Professionally, he spent nearly a decade at the Boston law firm Ropes & Gray, handling complex litigation. He has also been active in voting rights advocacy, serving as board chair of Common Cause Massachusetts, where he helped implement automatic voter registration and universal mail-in voting.
Check out my interview with Patrick, below. If you are interested in supporting Patrick, you can do so here: Roath for Congress.
Concluding Thoughts
Tuesday was a hard day. I spent most of it like many of you—laboring under a foreboding sense of dread mixed with collective national embarrassment that our president threatened the destruction of a “whole civilization”—an unspeakable crime that could only be accomplished by weapons of mass destruction.
In retrospect, Trump’s capitulation and predictable claim that his defeat was really a wild success confirmed what we already know—Trump is a coward and a blowhard who talks much tougher than he acts. But this was different, if only because of the terror that he inflicted on tens of millions of people in Iran, many of whom oppose the current regime. But it was different also because he is our president and try as we might, we cannot disassociate ourselves from him in the eyes of the global community.
Or can we?
Democrats in the House and Senate are beginning to push for impeachment and application of the 25th Amendment. Those efforts may fail, but are nonetheless necessary. The Article II “circuit-breakers” exist not only to protect the people but also to protect the Constitution.
We have a moral obligation to bring articles of impeachment and demand Trump’s removal under the 25th Amendment. If we fail to do so, the global community may believe that we are not sincere in our claims that we oppose Trump’s grotesque conduct. But more importantly, we may gain the ability to impeach Trump in November 2026. If we do so, then we must mark Trump for all of history as the only president to be impeached three times, and more.
Take a breath . . . and then prepare for the next battle. Ours must not be the generation that falters in preserving the flame of democracy for the next generation.
Stay strong!
Talk to you tomorrow!
Pro-democracy protest photos
[Send photos to rbhubbell@gmail.com. Indicate city and state. Please, no texts, zip files, or links to cloud storage sites for photos.]
**********************
Attached are three photos from our monthly Citizens Bank protest in Porter Square, Cambridge, MA
Her NKD3 outfit
No Kings 3 protest here in San Francisco.
40 strong from Indivisible Montpelier and Indivisible Calais, mostly older retired people on a mid-afternoon weekday, rallied today against the war in front of Montpelier Vermont’s City Hall.
Swampscott MA
A cold and very windy evening in the center of Delmar, NY, 4/7/26. We continue to STAND UP & SPEAK OUT on the madness of the President and his Republican enablers.
Providence, RI, says no! Use the 25th Amendment and remove him!
WofA members engaged commuters in the Metro urging them to Vote YES on the April 21 redistricting referendum – underground Visibility Brigades are now a thing!
Our group, Lyons Neighbors 4 Democracy, has sent you photos which you’ve included, thanks. I attach a few more today from No Kings. We have been meeting weekly since Feb. 5, 2025, having around 80 protesters per week; over 500 on No Kings days. Pretty good for a town of 2100. ‘Small but Mighty’ we say.
Each of these photographs were made along the appropriately named “Washington Street,” in Brainerd, Minnesota during the Brainerd Lakes Area Indivisible action on March 28, 2026.
No Kings Newburyport in MA. We had approximately 4,000 attendees and it went off without a hitch.
Topanga, CA. Back in 2019 I found an unlocked roadworks message board and made a slight alteration. The sentiment’s still good.
NK3 Day at the intersection of Havenhurst and Ventura in Encino, CA.
This morning, 4/7, in Pasadena, CA. We actually and unbelievably agree with Marjorie Taylor Green.
Photos from San Francisco
Photos from the 101 Freeway this week, both in Encino and Woodland Hills, CA
Me and my 86 yr old Mom, marching in Westerly, Rhode Island!!!
From Mj and PW, Belfast, Maine, a few photos from among the 5 canvas banners, all about 3’ x 4’ that I painted as part of the art4graham Platner. Crew! I’m a senior and also stand downtown daily, 12-1:00 to support Graham, and protest the myriad of crimes and injustices that this criminal regime perpetrates. May Graham help us to usher in a new reality. 🙏🏽
From NO KINGS 3, Belfast, ME
Chandler, AZ Tuesday morning, rush-hour 101 southbound
Two of almost 2000, Port Charlotte, FL Thanks for the “mantra” Robert NKD 3/28/26
Jackson Mississippi Visibility Bridge Brigade out every Friday or Saturday!
Today’s newsletter couldn’t have come at a better time! A friend Debbie Ott and myself on the Sappington Road overpass for about an hour on Monday 4/6 - Jail Pedo’s is what our banner said, one of a few IndivisibleSTL provides as loans to anyone who wants to participate!
NKD3 Ruby Red Lancaster, Ohio
Morning drive message from the Raleigh Bridge Brigade in Raleigh, NC
Englewood FL
March 28th - I painted “We the People” and “For Justice, Democracy, Prosperity, and Freedom” and “Queer Joy is Resistance” as a message for what we are FOR, hoping that we could shift into something more foundational and grounding.
From Today’s Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed