What National Interests Were Served by the Iran War?

As President Trump continues to attempt to extricate himself from the Iran War, analysts are left to assess what has been gained or lost in fighting it. Certainly, Iran has realized enormous gains. If the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by President Trump on Thursday is representative of the final agreement, Iran will be in a better position on the world stage than it has been at any time since the 1979 revolution.

According to the MOU, the U.S. will lift the economic sanctions it has imposed upon Iran for several decades. It will return $24 billion in Iranian funds frozen by the U.S. government. Iran will keep its conventional missile capability and some sort of peaceful nuclear program, almost certainly to include uranium enrichment, likely capped at a level far below weapons grade. The U.S. has also pledged to “remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.”

That means the U.S. will not send troops back to the military bases encircling Iran which the U.S. evacuated at the beginning of the war and Iran subsequently bombed into various states of damage or destruction.

Regarding the damage done to Iran by 40 days of bombing by the U.S. and Israel, the U.S. has agreed to “develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

As for the United States, it emerges from the war with very little to show for its efforts. Iran agrees not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, but they have promised as much for the past two decades and submitted to and passed inspections to ensure compliance.

That this “no nukes” clause represents no change in Iran’s policy or behavior is reflected in the agreement, which states, “The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons.” The word “reaffirms” was likely insisted upon by Iran so that the MOU would reflect what they claim has been their position since suspending their nuclear weapons program over twenty years ago.

Besides this non-concession, no other U.S. demand is satisfied in the MOU. The document is completely silent on Iran’s conventional missile program, which the U.S. demanded be curtailed or eliminated at the beginning of the war. Iran’s “proxies,” Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis are similarly not mentioned. So, Iran is not agreeing to anything regarding their support of those groups.

In fact, the MOU implicitly takes Hezbollah’s side, requiring, “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon,” and also “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.” This means Israel must withdraw its troops from Lebanon, where they are currently fighting Hezbollah. Lebanon is named three times in the first paragraph to ensure there is no confusion it is part of the deal, as there was at the beginning of the first ceasefire.

These are the kinds of terms imposed on the losers of a war by the winners.

Clearly, no U.S. interests were served by losing the war with Iran. But what if the U.S. had won it? What if the decapitation strategy pursued by the U.S. in March had succeeded, the neocon dream of mass revolt of the Iranian people had taken place, and the mullahs had been deposed? What U.S. national interest would have been served then?

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Tom Mullen is the author of It’s the Fed, Stupidand Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Isolationism Seems to be Working Just Fine for China

Leave a reply

As the 100th day approached of a war with Iran President Trump once said the U.S. won “in the first hour” of fighting on February 28, equity markets began to exhibit the kind of fear one would expect with 20% of the world’s oil and fertilizer trapped in the Persian Gulf.

Until today, Trump’s tap dancing between threats of Iran’s catastrophic destruction and last minute postponements due to supposed breakthroughs in negotiations, along with the release of hundreds of millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), had kept the oil price down and equity markets up.

But the president can only dance so long. The reality that there is no good way out of this war without explicitly or tacitly acceding to Iran’s demands may be starting to dawn on investors. That means the Iran War, whether it ends soon via U.S. capitulation or becomes yet another Middle East quagmire that drags on for years, will ultimately yield no benefit to the American people. All they’ll be left with are the costs, which in this case could be considerable and ongoing.

For average Americans, the empire is “all pain no gain.”

Proponents of the empire insist it is vital to “U.S. interests.” They argue that average Americans couldn’t enjoy the prosperity and freedom they do without the global standing army and gargantuan military budget to support it. But when pressed for details, the cause/effect relationships between the constant interventions and whatever freedom and prosperity Americans enjoy always gets vaguer and vaguer the more details one demands.

Regarding the current war, it is argued that Iran is a threat to Israel, a key ally. But when asked, “how does this alliance benefit Americans,” one usually receives replies like, “Israel is the only democracy in the region!” To which one could reasonably ask, “How do Americans benefit from there being a democracy in the region?”

There is usually some reference to oil at this point, which prompts the question, “How does America improve its access to Middle Eastern oil by antagonizing the oil producers?”

The arguments for the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine are similarly vague. And when one tries to pin proponents of the empire down by saying, “Explain, step by step, how Americans would have been adversely affected if this intervention never occurred,” one is met only with platitudes. “American Exceptionalism.” “Indispensable Nation.” “Western values.”

Maybe it’s hard to explain concretely because it’s just bunk.

Even the foreign policy realists like John Mearscheimer and Robert Pape, who have been 100 percent correct in their predictions about how this war would go, warn us that America cannot relapse into “isolationism,” lest other powers like China “fill the vacuum.”

It is important to understand isolationism as both the interventionists and the realists define it. Isolationism is refusing to take responsibility for security issues all over the world. While the neocons advocate kinetic military operations and the realists suggest strategies like containment and offshore balancing, they all agree Americans have to pay for the massive military structure necessary for either strategy.

Anything less is “isolationism,” even if the country in question has robust trade relationships with every existing and emerging power on earth and a military more than capable of enforcing its own security interests. That is still a recipe for disaster because it allows for the emergence of new threats like China and reemergence of old ones like Russia. And we all know no nation could prosper and grow while allowing that to happen.

Except China. It seems to be working just fine for China.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Tom Mullen is the author of It’s the Fed, Stupidand Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Time is running out for Trump, not Iran

Leave a reply

Despite myriad statements by President Trump indicating progress in peace talks with Iran, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says no progress has been made on a deal to date. Trump has taken the American public on a pendulum ride of sorts, first threatening to destroy Iran completely if a deal isn’t reach by his latest deadline, only to postpone the destruction at the last minute, claiming a breakthrough in negotiations that is expected to imminently lead to an agreement.

Then, no agreement comes, and the cycle starts over.

The truth is there have been no significant breakthroughs in negotiations since the war began February 28. The core U.S. demands have not changed; neither have the core Iranian demands.

The U.S. demands Iran cease nuclear enrichment entirely, even though enrichment is named an inalienable right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); Iran refuses to cease enrichment.

The U.S. demands Iran dismantle its missile capabilities; Iran refuses to do so.

The U.S. demands Iran ceases to support its proxies in Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen; Iran refuses, considering them “allies” rather than “proxies.”

The U.S. demands Iran relinquish all control over the Strait of Hormuz; Iran refuses and maintains it will continue to collect tolls in lieu of reparations for damage done by the war if it does not receive direct payment from the U.S. and Israel (i.e., “the U.S.”).

It’s really a stretch to even call what is going on between the two countries “negotiations.” Iran has refused to engage the U.S. directly after Trump imposed a blockade the day after a tenuous ceasefire. Instead, the U.S. sends emails to Pakistan, which is acting as intermediary. Pakistan forwards those emails to Iran.

Iran responds to those it feels it needs to. This is not the behavior of a defeated nation whose leadership is in disarray. It is the behavior of a nation on the verge of winning a war.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Tom Mullen is the author of It’s the Fed, Stupidand Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Leave the Epstein Files, Take the Anti-War

Leave a reply

Thomas Massie is one of the two best U.S. House Representatives of my lifetime. Were I a voter in KY-4 during this recent primary, I would have voted for him early and often. I would have persuaded my parents to vote for him (and they’re both deceased). I have agreed with Massie on absolutely every contentious issue he’s taken a stand on, except one.

The “Epstein Files.”

I realize this renders the vast majority of those whom I consider political allies apoplectic. I would ask all reading to bear with me. Make no mistake, I would still vote for Massie despite this one disagreement, but it is an important one not only for him but the entire “liberty movement” or whatever we’re calling it these days.

The fixation with Epstein has become so pervasive among anti-establishment groups of all kinds – libertarian, America First conservatives, some left-wing groups, etc. – that it has become fashionable to refer to the people previously called “the elites” or “the globalists” as “the Epstein class.”

There is no denying this has been effective. The targets clearly don’t like it, and it provides coalition building between groups that may not have much else in common. That Massie was able to partner with Ro Khanna on this issue may remind Ron Paul libertarians of Paul’s coalitions with Dennis Kucinich against unconstitutional wars of aggression. But this coalition is fundamentally different, for several reasons.

First, the overall theory isn’t true. As rapacious as the so-called globalists may be economically, it is probably not true that sexual crimes against girls under the age of consent is rampant or was so when Epstein was alive. If it were true, then proponents of this theory would be able to present clear cut individual cases which should be prosecuted but haven’t been.

Repeatedly, I have challenged my fellow libertarians to produce a solitary case against someone where the evidence of guilt is clear and but for reluctance to prosecute the perpetrator would be sitting in jail. I have yet to be presented with a single such case.

And no, Prince Andrew is not an example. He was thoroughly investigated and prosecution was not possible due to lack of evidence.

The second reason this coalition is different is its basis in Marxist-feminist reasoning. The invitation by the left to “believe all women” necessitates destroying due process, a fundamental pillar of liberty itself. Libertarians were willing to defend Bush ally Brett Kavanaugh on these grounds when just such an accusation was made, despite having no love for Kavanaugh.

Read the rest at Tom’s Substack

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Part One and host of the Tom Mullen Talks Freedom podcast.

Why The Saint is so much better than James Bond

Leave a reply

I was born in the mid-1960s and remember the birth of cable television. Home Box Office (HBO) premiered in 1972 and soon after my family had a cable subscription.

By the early 70s I was already a huge Universal classic horror fan. Even before cable, I had seen the 1931 Karloff Frankenstein, the 1931 Lugosi Dracula, and a few of the others on the “Friday Fright Night” late show that ran after the 11:00 news on the local ABC affiliate. But cable television opened up the entire catalog to me.

In those days, cable scheduling was fast and loose. What used to be an empty spot on the dial pre-cable now might host one cable channel for part of the day and another for the rest. Most of the cable stations went off air at midnight, just like the local network affiliates, with a rendition of the national anthem.

One such channel in the Buffalo, N.Y. market (I don’t remember the dial number) carried WPIX Channel 11 from New York City (NYC) on Saturday mornings until 10 AM. There was a god-awful children’s show about a leprechaun named “Harrigan” until 9:30, at which time an episode of the 1960s Spiderman cartoon series would come on. I timed breakfast so that I was finished just in time to hear as little of the Harrigan outro theme song as possible without missing the teaser for Spiderman.

But that was just the warmup act for what followed. At 10 AM, the station would switch from WPIX Channel 11 NYC to WOR TV Channel 9 NYC. And every Saturday morning at that time, a 1930s or 1940s film would be shown. These included the Universal classic horror films – usually the B movie sequels, not the originals. However, they tended to run them in multi-week series. So, if The Mummy’s Hand (1940) were shown one Saturday, then the Mummy’s Tomb (1942) would show the next, The Mummy’s Ghost (1944) the week after, and The Mummy’s Curse (1944) the week after that.

Ditto with the Frankenstein films. If Son of Frankenstein (1939) played the first week, it likely would be followed in successive weeks by Ghost of Frankenstein (1942), Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943), House of Frankenstein (1944), and House of Dracula (1945).

I was like a prospector who had hit the mother lode.

Of course, it wasn’t just the Universal classic horror films that played in the 10 AM slot. When they weren’t running those, they would run other films from the same period, which I came to enjoy almost as much. It was on WOR Channel 9 that I first encountered The Saint.

In keeping with the pattern, I don’t believe I saw the first of the RKO Saint series starring Louis Hayward in the title role. My entire exposure to the Saint was the following five films starring George Sanders. As far as I was concerned, George Sanders was The Saint. I had no knowledge of the Leslie Charteris novels and short stories wherein the character had been created. Neither did The Saint’s ideological significance occur to me at that age.

After finally reading several of the Charteris novels (Meet the Tiger, Enter the Saint, The Last Hero aka The Saint Closes the Case, The Avenging Saint) and rewatching the five Sanders films (conveniently sold in one DVD collection), it is obvious Simon Templar inspired Ian Fleming’s James Bond, even if Fleming never publicly acknowledged it.

Templar is essentially Bond’s prototype: a suave Englishman with expensive tastes, a predilection for fast cars, a way with beautiful women, and a habit of delivering sharp one-liners while facing deadly threats and taking on sophisticated criminals. But one thing makes Simon Templar far better than James Bond:

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

What Would Truly Make America Great Again?

Leave a reply

Donald Trump ran three presidential campaigns under the banner Make America Great Again (MAGA). He also promised to put “America First,” a reference to the 20^th century interwar movement that opposed further involvement in foreign wars. Instead, its adherents then and a large portion of Trump’s supporters now believe the wars America has fought have not served the interests of Americans and that the federal government should address those instead of “going abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”

But therein lies the rub. Whether or not MAGA and America First are compatible largely depends upon how one defines “great.” And based upon the president’s actions thus far during his second term, his definition does not jibe with that of his America First supporters nor their 20^th century predecessors.

Trump’s supporters are sometimes criticized for romanticizing the 1950s, a period of relative peace and domestic prosperity. From the early 50s through the mid-1960s, life most approached what they consider the American ideal. Jobs were plentiful, including high paying manufacturing jobs, and most American households could live comfortably on one income.

They believe economic “globalization” ruined this idyllic lifestyle. Specifically, “free” trade agreements like NAFTA and allowing China to enter the WTO resulted in U.S. manufacturing being outsourced to cheaper labor markets abroad. This, they contend, has resulted in a dearth of high-paying jobs and the necessity for at least two people in the average household to work just to scrape by.

Thus, Trump’s first inaugural promised to reverse this “American carnage,” bring high paying manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., and restore the idyllic lifestyle Americans once enjoyed as their birthright.

It’s a compelling story and has certainly created a vast political movement. It’s also demonstrably false on every point.

First, American manufacturing has not been “hollowed out.” Manufacturing output is currently at an all-time high and any honest analysis of its virtually uninterrupted ascent over the past 100 years would conclude that the only interruptions to this success story have been the two financial crises – and accompanying monetary inflation – in 2008 and 2020. More on that later.

It is true that manufacturing jobs have declined precipitously, but that just means that the U.S. manufacturing sector is becoming more efficient, able to produce more output with fewer workers. The same thing has happened in farming over the past 100 years. In any case, the trend has nothing to do with NAFTA or China entering the WTO, as this chart clearly demonstrates:

If one were to take away the years at the bottom of that chart, no one claiming NAFTA or China entering the WTO were the driving factors in the decline of manufacturing jobs would be able to find those trade agreements on the chart. In fact, if one were to pull the timeframe out to include pre-WWII periods, it would show that WWII and the years immediately afterward were the highwater mark in terms of manufacturing jobs as a percentage of all jobs.

In other words, for most of American history, including most of the 1950s, 70% or more of American workers had non-manufacturing jobs. And somehow they were able to live middle class lifestyles.

It isn’t even true that increasing the number of manufacturing jobs would make the average American wealthier today. The median annual wage or salary for all full-time jobs in the U.S. economy is about $62,400. The median for full-time manufacturing jobs is about $45,960. Americans leaving the average job for a manufacturing job would not live a higher lifestyle. Quite the contrary.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be an “affordability” problem for average Americans. And the U.S. has been running large net trade deficits for decades, with no foreseeable end in sight. If Trump’s story doesn’t explain these problems, what does?

That brings us back to the definition of “greatness.”

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Iran exposes the delusional empire and its mad king

Leave a reply

Eight days after threatening on Easter Sunday to end Iran’s civilization should it not open the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump on Monday began blockading the strait himself. He also threatened to “seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas.”

This latter threat, which if carried out would amount to acts of war against the country of origin of the vessel(s), would include Russian and Chinese ships.

It is one thing to demand the strait be opened and, when Iran refused, to “close it harder” yourself. It is quite another to declare your intention to commit acts of war against the two most powerful countries in the world besides the United States, both with significant nuclear arsenals.

Fortunately, April 14 turned out to be another “TACO Tuesday” as previously sanctioned ship Rich Starry, bound for China and carrying a Chinese crew, successfully exited the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. officials explained its inaction based upon the ship having loaded its cargo in a United Arab Emirates port, rather than an Iranian port, and having not paid a toll to Iran. The ship therefore did not meet U.S. criteria for stoppage.

Whatever. That the U.S. did not commit any acts of war against a Chinese-crewed ship bound for China is a good thing. Iran has been allowing the ships of its allies to navigate the strait since the beginning of the war. It remains to be seen what will happen if a Russian or Chinese ship which does meet the U.S. criteria attempts to leave the gulf. The Murlikishan, another Chinese-crewed ship under a foreign flag and eventually bound for China, is currently in the gulf.

The blockade is the latest in a series of erratic attempts by President Trump to find an exit ramp from a war even he clearly realizes was a major blunder. The problem is that no matter which direction Trump goes in, the Iranian’s have the upper hand.

His threat to “end Iran’s civilization” by bombing their energy plants, desalination plants, and other civilian infrastructure was countered by Iran’s threat to do likewise to the GCC states. While this wouldn’t save Iran from devastation, it would effectively take the entire world down with it as about 20 percent of the world’s oil supply would no longer merely be interrupted by a temporary blockade but destroyed. The U.S. can’t afford a global depression. Iran’s capability to take down the global economy effectively gives them a trump card (intended) on military escalation.

Neither will Trump’s blockade be effective. Trump was willing to go to the extremes he did on Easter Sunday precisely because Iran’s own closure of the Strait of Hormuz was already damaging the world economy and that damage would increase exponentially the longer the closure went on. That fact hasn’t changed. Trump is saying that if Iran won’t let its enemies ships pass through the strait, then the U.S. won’t let its friends pass, either.

That not only doesn’t solve the economic problems caused by Iran’s closure; it makes them worse. It just means that even less oil, gas, and fertilizer is leaving the Persian Gulf than under Iran’s blockade alone. If Iran’s friends can no longer obtain those commodities from the Persian Gulf, they are going to compete with the U.S. and its allies for them in other markets, driving up the price for everyone. Iran wins again.

The madness of King Donald is driven by desperation. He cannot admit to himself he made a mistake starting the war in the first place nor face the reality that his tried-and-true bag of tricks – including making extreme demands and then pivoting to a more reasonable but advantageous position – is not going to get him out of this. Iran simply responds with the Art of the No Deal and leaves Trump flailing.

Iran has all the cards in this hand precisely because the administration has given them nothing to lose. It is true that the U.S. and Israel have destroyed a huge percentage of Iran’s above ground capabilities. But Iran anticipated that eventuality for decades. They’ve been preparing to survive this war since before Trump started hosting The Apprentice.

Given that all Iran must do to win is survive, maintain its capabilities to control the Strait, and retain its ability to respond to external attacks, it had a huge advantage before the first shot was fired. On the other hand, for the U.S. to win, it must either change the entire structure of Iranian government or truly eliminate Iran’s missile and nuclear enrichment capabilities, both of which may be far enough underground that even nuclear weapons cannot reach them.

Thus, the U.S. stumbles from one strategy to the next, trying to find one that has any leverage. It has lately moved several thousand ground troops to the region either for appearances or as a contingency. But again, what will the winning strategy be on the ground? Conquering Iran would take hundreds of thousands of troops if it were possible for the U.S. at all. Anything short of that would be short lived and indecisive. Indecisive means Iran wins again.

It isn’t only the emperor who has lost touch with reality but the empire itself. The 20^th century was the American century. The U.S. built its global empire fighting and defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War. While there were plenty of blunders to point to and at least one defeat in Vietnam, the empire in general achieved its strategic goals. Whether the average American would have been better off without the empire is an argument for another day. But on its own terms, the empire set reasonable goals and achieved them.

This century tells a different story.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Where will a U.S. defeat in Iran leave the world?

Leave a reply

Monday April 6 will mark the end of President Trump’s 10-day extension of the 5-day extension of his March 21 48-hour ultimatum to Iran to either agree to a peace deal or face destruction of its energy infrastructure. Trump claims productive “talks” are occurring between the adversaries; Iran denies them. It is increasingly clear that what Trump is calling “talks” are in reality his administration’s attempts to contact the Iranian government through intermediaries, primarily Pakistan.

The peace deal Trump is insisting on contains all the terms presented to Iran before the war, including complete cessation of uranium enrichment, surrender of all previously enriched uranium, curtailment of their missile program, cessation of sponsoring proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis), and cessation of any attempt to build a nuclear weapon.

Apart from the last item, the terms comprised an offer the Iranians couldn’t accept, rather than one they couldn’t refuse, and appeared to be merely a pretense for the U.S. and Israel to launch the war they planned regardless. That they attacked Iran while the latter was meeting internally to discuss the terms all but confirms that.

In addition to making clear they are no longer interested in negotiating with the United States, the Iranians have issued their own set of demands to end hostilities: cessation of attacks and a binding agreement(s) it will not be attacked again, reparations for the damages caused by the attacks, recognition of its control over the Strait of Hormuz, continuation of its non-military nuclear program.

Although these also seem like “an offer the U.S. can’t accept,” they are eminently reasonable demands outside of control of the strait. The Strait of Hormuz is only partially in Iran’s territorial waters, the southern half belonging to Oman. Iran has already expressed a willingness to consider joint custody of the strait and would likely also consider an international arrangement if its other demands were met.

Iran’s demands are reasonable. Washington’s demands are not. The latter would leave Iran utterly defenseless against Israel and the U.S., both of which have repeatedly demonstrated their predisposition to attack it.

Should Trump follow through on his threats to destroy Iran’s energy infrastructure and possibly its desalination plants on Monday, Iran has vowed to do likewise to the energy and desalination infrastructure of every GCC state hosting American military bases. And despite Trump’s claims that their missile capability has been “dramatically curtailed,” they have since demonstrated a robust capability in their missile attacks on Tel Aviv immediately following Trump’s address.

If Trump and Iran follow through on their threats, a significant portion of the world’s energy infrastructure will be destroyed. The civilian populations of Iran and the GCC states will be devastated. Tens of millions could die. And the rest of the world would undoubtedly plunge into a global economic depression that could kill tens of millions more.

Contrary to Trump’s claims that oil from the Strait of Hormuz is largely not imported into the U.S. and therefore of no concern to the U.S., Americans are already suffering from the effects of Iran’s closure of the strait. This is basic economics. When the world supply of oil decreases, the price paid worldwide increases. Regardless of whether the particular oil exported through the strait normally reaches the U.S., those who do import that oil will compete with U.S. importers for what the latter do import when supply is reduced or eliminated from the strait.

That is why American importers are currently paying double what they paid for a barrel of oil just three months ago. And that price will rise dramatically if the supply of oil from the region is indefinitely reduced due to destruction of the region’s energy infrastructure rather than merely interrupted by Iran’s blockade.

This would seem far too high a price to bring Iran to heel, but for anyone arguing it is “worth it” in the long run, there is a very important question one must answer: Will it actually bring Iran to heel?

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

The emperor is defeated in Persia

Leave a reply

Flavius Claudius Julianus, known to modern students of history as “Julian,” was an unlikely emperor. A nephew of Constantine the Great through Constantine’s half brother Julius Constantius, there were long odds he would survive at all during the family purge that occurred following Constantine’s death.

After previously ordering the execution of his own son by his first wife, whom he may also have had executed, Constantine bequeathed the Roman empire to three sons by his second wife, Constantine II, Constans I, and Constantius II. After Constantine II died while waging war against Constans, Constans himself was killed in a revolt by the usurper Magnentius. This left Constantius II as the sole emperor of Rome, once the defeated Magnentius took his own life at the end of a three-year civil war.

Having survived this Corleone-style bloodbath, Constantius was understandably concerned about the threat his two cousins posed. After all, he was responsible not only for killing their father but much of their extended family. However, as Julian and his half brother Gallus were only children at the time, their lives were spared. They lived more or less under house arrest during their childhood but were provided a Christian education.

Ironically, talent was often a liability among Roman men of public renown. Specifically, a demonstrated ability to lead men in battle and defeat Rome’s enemies made one popular with the troops and the Roman citizenry but suspected as a rival by the emperor. Such was the fate of Julian’s brother Gallus, whom Constantius had killed after previously making Gallus a Caesar, allowing him to marry his sister, and tasking him with avenging Constans in the civil war against Magnentius.

Gallus performed far too well as a military leader and was summoned to Constantius’ court at Milan. During his journey thereto, he suddenly found the military garrisons in his path absent and was arrested and eventually executed.

Julian, on the other hand, did not immediately demonstrate any ability that could pose a threat to his cousin. After Gallus’ death, Julian was summoned to Milan where he was interrogated and detained for several months. However, partially due to the intervention of Constantius’ wife Eusebia, Julian was allowed to travel to Athens.

Julian had long wished to make this trip and immerse himself in the city’s philosophical culture. Once there, he attended lectures, developed relationships with prominent Christian and pagan teachers and students, and was eventually initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries. There he hope to spend his life in academic and philosophical study.

Unfortunately for Julian, his genuine love of philosophical life persuaded Constantius that he was not a rival for his throne after all, prompting Constantius to make him Caesar! Under the system established by Diocletian, Caesars were subordinate to the emperor (or emperors) who bore the title “Augustus.”

Julian had no desire to leave his contemplative life in Athens and had good reason to suspect his trip to meet Constantius would end similarly to Gallus’. But Constantius was sincere and the young academic was made Caesar of the West and packed off to Gaul to represent the emperor.

Julian at first took up his duties reluctantly, lamenting while performing military exercises, “Oh, Plato, what a task for a philosopher!” according to Gibbon. But in time, he became a capable administrator and military leader, defeating the barbarians who had breached the Rhine, and establishing peace once more in the province.

Of course, Julian’s demonstrated ability as a leader now provoked the same suspicion in Constantius as had Gallus’. However, with civil war once again looming, Constantius died of a fever in 361 CE, having allegedly recognized Julian as his successor before his death.

Julian was a divisive leader due to his religious and civil policies. Known as “Julian the Apostate” to the Catholic Church, Julian attempted to reestablish the empire’s traditional pagan religion and persecuted Christians. Devoted to the aesthetic life himself, he viewed the opulent court apparatus as wasteful and inefficient. He fired thousands of servants and officials and had scheming eunuchs within the court system (the “Deep State” of the day) tried and executed.

Julian was adored by his supporters, especially in the military, and hated by his detractors, especially in the Church. Equally divisive were his economic policies. Accusing wealthy merchants of price gouging, he fixed the price of grain, imported additional stores from Egypt, and forced reluctant landowners to sell at the artificially low prices.

By 363 CE, although only in his early thirties, Julian had gone from exile to absolute ruler of the Roman empire. His reign was lauded as wildly successful by his supporters, and even his political adversaries would have had to concede that the rise of this non-politician to the most powerful office in the world was extraordinary.

Then came the Persian campaign.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Why the Trump experiment was a failure in shrinking government or ending ‘forever wars’

Leave a reply

On Saturday, February 28^th, President Trump launched an undeclared war on Iran without even the formality of the watered-down version of a Congressional declaration of war, an authorization to use military force (AUMF). Unfortunately, like most of Trump’s unconstitutional actions, this was not unprecedented. Barack Obama launched his war in Syria even after Congress voted to prohibit him from doing so. But it was the first time a president embarked on a full-blown war without even attempting to make a case to the public.

Americans generally acquiesce to foreign adventures if they’ve been made to feel they were part of the decision, delusional as that may be.

What makes Trump’s war so shocking is its brazenness in betraying his voters. Not involving the United States in a new war was a pillar of Trump’s campaign. If curbing illegal immigration was his first and foremost promise, not doing precisely what he’s doing in Iran was at least tied for second, alongside imposing mercantilism on the American economy.

Right behind those, especially after Elon Musk joined his 2024 campaign, was a promise to shrink the size of government by taking a cleaver to the administrative state. Trump seemed well on his way to following through on this when USAID was dismantled, complete with video of the sign on the door being ceremoniously removed.

It was a symbolic gesture, to be sure. USAID only cost taxpayers about $20 billion per year out of the government’s almost $7,000 billion per year budget. But USAID punched far above its budget, being a key mechanism for funding the NGOs the empire uses in fomenting coups in other countries (and maybe this one on occasion).

Moreover, Trump talked about it at the time as if it were only the beginning. Bigger administrative game was to be hunted, he said, especially the long promised (by Republicans) abolition of the Department of Education and even cuts to the Department of Defense..

Given the start the Trump administration got off to, the startling difference in cabinet appointments from the first Trump term, and the antiestablishment momentum Trump and MAGA seem to have coming into power, even libertarians had reason to believe some good might come out of the supposed revolution.

It may not have been realistic to hope for what’s really needed – 200,000 troops ordered home from overseas, repeal of the New Deal root and branch, and an end to the Federal Reserve – but perhaps an end to involvement of the Ukraine War, if not Israel’s war in Gaza, and the elimination of a department or two. Perhaps, if all the stars lined up, a fiscal year spending number lower than the year before for the first time when a Republican president is in office.

Instead, we got precisely the opposite on all fronts. In less than a year, Trump has gone from talking about cutting the DOD to increasing its budget by fifty percent. The Department of Education got a haircut at best once you do the accounting the same as it was done up until 2025. But worst of all, Trump launched a war of choice against Iran, the war neoconservatives have dreamed of this entire century but that even War on Terror presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama were wise enough to avoid.

Trump’s most loyal diehards are trying to spin this as a defensive action, or not a war at all, or anything other than a complete betrayal of one of Trump’s most important promises and the America First philosophy in general. But everyone else who supported Trump, in principle or pragmatically, has whiplash.

For those who supported Trump primarily because they hoped his second term would at least be a break from nonstop military adventurism and runaway federal spending, the experiment has completely failed.

Why? Many have suggested Trump has no political principles; that he acts purely on instinct and political dealmaking. But that’s not true. Trump has a clearly defined philosophy that he consistently articulated for decades before entering politics.

No, it’s not fascism.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…