THE ONLY THING THIS WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO IS A FINAL BREATH ON THE GURNEY IN A DEATH CHAMBER

Entitled DC cop killer who coldly executed police officer by shooting him four times in head demands early release - and woke law means he might get it

 

By Lauren Acton-Taylor 

 

Daily Mail

Mar 17, 2026

 

 

Washington DC Police Officer Brian Gibson, 28, was shot and killed by Marthell Dean, who was 23 at the time, in February 1997 after he became angry for being escorted out of a nightclub

 

The killer of a cop in Washington DC who coldly executed his victim may be granted early release under a progressive new law.  

Marthell Dean was 23 years old when he fatally shot 28-year-old Officer Brian Gibson four times in the head and shoulder at around 3am in 1997. 

Now, the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act may grant him his freedom. 

The controversial law from 2016 allows convicts who were under the age of 24 when they committed their crimes to be granted early release or a reduced sentence if they had already served 15 years behind bars. 

Dean's petition to be released, however, is strongly opposed by Gibson's grieving family, as well as federal prosecutors, Police Chief Jeffery Carroll and the police labor union, The Washington Post reported. 

Carroll said in a statement to the outlet that the 'vow to never forget is not a hollow one,' describing Dean as the person 'responsible for this heinous act' who 'should remain incarcerated for the rest of his life.'

Gibson was killed in February 1997, as the court heard that Dean had been angry for being thrown out of the Ibex nightclub by an off-duty officer, NBC 4 reported. 

Terrica Gibson, the officer's sister, told the outlet: 'One of the many things that's always hurt me the most if Brian was shot in the shoulder first, which means he may well have known what was coming.'

 

Dean may now be granted early release due to the controversial Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act from 2016, which was updated to allow convicts who were 24 years old or under at the time of their crime to be eligible for a reduced sentence 

Gibson's mother, Shirley Gibson, said at the time that Dean's sentencing of life without parole brought her 'a little comfort' 

 

'I have to say, part of me is very sad. My mother is no longer here. But then part of me is happy that she isn't seeing this, because it was devastate her,' she added. 

Gibson's mother, Shirley Gibson, said at the time that Dean's sentencing of life without parole brought her 'a little comfort.' 

Shirley then spent years serving Christmas and Thanksgiving dinners to DC police officers until her death in July 2021.

Gibson's mother was described as 'Law Enforcement's Mom' in the years after Gibson's death, according to numerous social media posts. 

'Shirley turned her pain into passion... and served as the National President of Concerns of Police Survivors. She was always our "go to" speaker at the Memorial Fund whenever we needed an inspirational voice,' Craig Floyd, founder of Citizens Behind the Badge and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, wrote on Facebook after Shirley's death. 

Now, with both of her parents gone, Terrica will be providing an impact statement on behalf of her family to oppose Dean's release. 

'I'm really alone. That family of four that was so perfect is now gone, and it's just me, but I will fight because it's me and I will take care of him,' Terrica told NBC 4. 

Gibson was a Marine Corps reservist who served in Operation Desert Storm, the Post reported. He left behind a wife and two daughters, one just 13 months old at the time of this death. 

 

Terrica Gibson, Gibson's sister, is strongly opposing Dean's release and said that it 'takes away from the fact that a good man was senselessly murdered'

Gibson, seen pictured, left behind a wife and two daughters, one who was just 13 months old when he was killed

 

'He has a grandson and a granddaughter that he will never see and they never got to know him,' Terrica said. 

The devastating impact of Gibson's death highlighted the opposition toward the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act. While some believe the law holds importance to recognize rehabilitation within the prison system, others have argued that it allows violent offenders a 'get out of jail free' card.

Jeanine Pirro, the US attorney for DC, told the Post: 'It's essentially a "get out of jail early" ticket for repeated, serial, cold-blooded killers. It's inconsistent with a civil society.'

'It spits in the face of every grieving family. This isn't reform. This is pure evil dressed up as compassion,' Pirro added. 

From when the law was implemented up until 2023, 155 people had been granted early release with around 90 percent not being charged with another crime, the Post reported. 

According to Pirro, around 80 percent of petitions are granted by judges. 

The controversial law has faced criticism and opposition from both federal prosecutors appointed under former President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump. 

Greggory Pemberton, the police union chairman, told the outlet that Gibson's murder was 'a profound wound that still echoes.'

 

Shirley spent years serving Christmas and Thanksgiving dinners to DC police officers until her death in July 2021. Gibson's mother was described as 'Law Enforcement's Mom'

Jeanine Pirro, the US attorney for DC, described the controversial law as 'essentially a "get out of jail early" ticket' for violent offenders 

Greggory Pemberton, the police union chairman, said the early release of Dean 'sends the worst message' possible, allowing those who 'intentionally murder a police officer' to receice 'worst case scenario... 15 years in prison'

 

'It reminded every officer of the mortal risks we face daily,' Pemberton added. 'The pain remains permanent: no more anniversaries, no father-daughter dances, no grandfather stories. Brian is gone forever because of Dean's actions.'

Dean's petition remains sealed, and his arguments for early release remain unclear. The Act he is looking to make use of was originally intended for offenders who committed a crime under the age of 18 and had served at least 20 years behind bars. 

However, it was amended under the Second Look Amendment Act of 2019 to raise the qualifying age and lower the necessary time served.

The criteria also includes maturity, rehabilitation and a low chance of reoffending, which would allow the judge to allow for early release 'despite the brutality or cold-blooded nature of any particular offense,' according to the Post. 

Officials have said that repeat offenders following early release are around three percent, while Pirro noted a case of one offender who was convicted of murdering a child at age 16. 

The offender was granted early release in August 2020 and arrested one year later for another murder, the Post reported. 

Erin Pinder, the executive director of the Second Look Project - an organization which represents those seeking release - declined to comment to the Post. 

In statements she referred the outlet to, Pinder said the Act 'gives judges the tools to evaluate rehabilitation, account for the maturity that comes with time and ensure that individuals who no longer pose a danger to the public have a meaningful path home.' 

'This is not leniency. It is sound policy, grounded in decades of research showing that people age out of violent crime as they mature,' Pinder said. 

In a letter provided by the police union to the Post, Terrica wrote: 'Brian is gone forever because of Marthell Dean.'

She added in her opposition of Dean's release that it 'takes away from the fact that a good man was senselessly murdered.'

Pemberton said in a post from the DC Police Union: 'This sends the worst message we could possibly imagine that if you senselessly, intentionally murder a police officer - Worst case scenario, you do 15 years in prison.' 

REPUBLICANS WHO DO NOT SUPPORT TRUMP'S AGENDA ARE THREATENED BY THE PRESIDENT

Trump's SAVE America Act is doomed for a simple reason as he rages against 'sick and demented' Republican holdouts

 

By Victoria Churchill 

 

Daily Mail

Mar 17, 2026

 

 

"Only sick, demented, or deranged people could vote against the Save America Act," President Trump wrote on Truth Social, threatening to campaign against any Republican who defies him. 

 

Donald Trump's controversial SAVE America Act is doomed to fail in the Senate.

The bill - a cornerstone of Trump's MAGA agenda - needs 60 votes to pass in the Senate. It narrowly squeaked over the finish line on Tuesday for a 'test' vote that only required a simple majority.

The legislation, officially called the Save America Voting Eligibility Act, would require proof of U.S. citizenship to cast a ballot, a measure Trump has spent weeks demanding as essential to 'protect American elections.'

Proof means supplying a passport, birth certificate, or REAL ID explicitly showing citizenship. Student IDs and utility bills don't qualify. 

Trump issued a stark warning to any GOP holdouts on his signature legislation. 

'Only sick, demented, or deranged people could vote against the Save America Act,' he wrote on Truth Social, threatening to campaign against any Republican who defies him. 

'Each one of these votes will be used against them - a guaranteed loss,' he went on.

The president has made the bill a personal crusade, declaring that he will not sign any other legislation until the Senate passes it. 

 

The legislation, officially called the Save America Voting Eligibility Act, would require proof of U.S. citizenship to cast a ballot, a measure Trump has spent weeks demanding as essential to 'protect American elections'

Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks during a press conference

 

That is now becoming a headache for Senate Majority Leader John Thune. 

'It supersedes everything else,' Trump wrote earlier this month, calling the measure 'one of the most important and consequential pieces of legislation in American history.'

The first vote, a procedural step to open debate, needed just 51 senators to pass. Fifty of the 53 Senate Republicans pledged support, enough to move it forward. But that's where it is doomed to be tied up forever.

North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, who is not seeking reelection, did not vote on the bill, and Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, who has previously been elected as a write-in candidate and is not up again until 2028, voted no. Senator Mitch McConnell was the 51st affirmative vote.

Senator Susan Collins, a vulnerable GOP incumbent up again this November, became the 50th backer of the bill last week, a move for which she was thanked by House Republican Anna Paulina Luna with a delivery of 50 white roses to Collins' office. 

 

People wait in line to vote on Florida's last early voting day for the 2024 presidential election in Florida, at the Miami-Dade County Elections Department in Miami, Florida, USA, 03 November 2024

 

Close up photograph of passport, social security card and driverlicense

 

Trump has insisted that the Senate version should go even further — calling for voter ID, proof of citizenship, strict limits on mail-in ballots, and even bans on transgender surgeries for minors and biological men competing in women's sports.

That's created a rift with House Republicans, who passed a 'watered-down' version last month that focused solely on election rules.

Meanwhile, deepening the standoff between the chambers, hardline House conservatives threatened to tank other Senate-passed bills — beginning with a routine small-business measure- until the SAVE Act clears Congress. Only 40 House Republicans voted against the small business bill on Tuesday, which saw the measure pass.

With the Senate now preparing for days of high-stakes debate and talk of a possible filibuster showdown, Washington is once again at the center of a Trump-fueled standoff — and the stakes for both parties couldn't be higher.

DEATH THREATS AGAINST JUDGES WHO RULED AGAINST TRUMP

Supreme Court's top judge issues chilling warning as Trump targets his own appointees

 

By Ross Ibbetson 

 

Daily Mail

Dec 17, 2026

 

 

Chief Justice John Roberts warned that criticisms of judicial opinions could shift from "legal analysis to personalities," with results that could be "frankly, quite dangerous."

 

The most powerful judge in America has told Donald Trump to back off, warning that personal attacks on the Supreme Court are 'dangerous' and have 'got to stop'.|

Chief Justice John Roberts said criticisms of judicial opinions were expected - but that 'personally directed hostility is dangerous and it's got to stop.' 

Roberts said dissenting opinions among the justices themselves were common, and that it was 'important' that their decisions were 'subjected to scrutiny.' 

But he warned that criticism could shift from 'legal analysis to personalities,' with results that could be 'frankly, quite dangerous.'

Roberts was speaking at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston on Tuesday.  

US District Judge Lee Rosenthal, a George HW Bush appointee, thanked Roberts on behalf of trial judges, saying 'we always know that you have our backs, and that means a great deal.' 

Trump on Sunday singled out two of his own appointees, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, accusing them of having 'gone out of their way' to oppose him with 'bad and wrongful rulings,' in a Truth Social tirade. 

He called the Supreme Court a 'weaponized and unjust political organization' that 'routinely sides with the radical left Democrats' and will 'only get worse.' 

 

Donald Trump shakes hands with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as he arrives to deliver his State of the Union address in the House Chamber of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on February 24

Trump greets Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ahead of the State of the Union address during a Joint Session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on February 24

 

Trump also vowed to call out their 'bad behavior' despite admitting it would cause future problems. 

Roberts joined Coney Barrett and Gorsuch in the 6-3 ruling on February 20 that struck down Trump's tariffs. 

The court determined that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not grant the President the authority to impose his sweeping 'emergency' tariffs.

Conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. 

The ruling wiped out the legal basis for Trump's global tariff policy, blowing a $1.6 trillion hole in government revenue.  

The Trump administration immediately pivoted to a new 10 percent baseline tariff under a separate authority. 

The new tariff, announced on February 24, applies to nearly all imports, with the administration threatening to raise the rate to 15 percent later this year.

Trump's team is scrambling to claw back the lost revenue as companies file for refunds after the previous tariff authority was voided. 

 

Cabinet members US Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett listen as US President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address in the House Chamber of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on February 24

 

The Daily Mail has contacted the White House for comment. 

Threats against federal judges have risen sharply since Trump took office, with 400 judges targeted with 'serious threats' - a 78 percent spike on four years ago - according to the US Marshals Service. 

Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said earlier this month he has 'never encountered the hostility' toward the judiciary he has witnessed over the past year. 

Coughenour told 60 Minutes he received hundreds of death threats and was subjected to swatting calls after Trump took issue with his 'blatantly unconstitutional' ruling against the President's birthright citizenship executive order. 

ADIOS, AND DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN YOUR ASS ON THE WAY OUT

Trump tears into 'weak' official who resigned over Iran war as his allies pile on 'crazed egomaniac' who was about to be FIRED

 

By Katelyn Caralle 

 

Daily Mail

Mar 17, 2026

 

 

National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent announced today that that he was resigning over his objection to the US conflict with Iran, stating that "Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby."

 

Donald Trump said he is glad that his top counterterrorism official resigned over the war with Iran.

In an extraordinary and unprecedented move for this administration, National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent announced he was stepping down over his objections to the US launching joint strikes with Israel. 

'When I read his statement I realized that it's a good thing that he's out because he said that Iran was not a threat. Iran was a threat – every country realized what a threat Iran was,' the President insisted.

He said there would have been a 'nuclear holocaust' if the US had not taken the step at the end of last month to strike Iran. 

'When somebody is working with us that says they didn't think Iran is a threat – we don't want those people,' Trump added.

And Trump allies piled on, claiming that Kent was already in the firing line to lose his job before his resignation. 

Kent said in a post to X on Tuesday that he could not 'in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran' through his role under Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

'Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,' he wrote.

It marks the first major and voluntary departure of a senior Trump administration official since he retook office last year. And it represents a significant condemnation of the ongoing war with Iran from a person with direct intelligence on the threat level posed by the regime.

 

President Donald Trump says he is glad his top counterterrorism official resigned amid claiming Iran did not pose a threat to the US

 

Kent, in his resignation letter, accused the President of going back on the non-interventionist principles he campaigned on in 2024.

Alongside Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin, Trump defended his decision to engage with Iran.

'I read his statement. I always thought he was a nice guy, but I always thought he was weak on security,' Trump said of Kent, adding that military scholars agree Iran needed to be 'taken out… because they wanted a nuclear weapon.' 

Kent, who deployed to combat 11 times and lost his wife Shannon in what he calls a war manufactured by Israel, is closely aligned with the populist 'America First' wing of the Trump administration.

'Until June of 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were a trap that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation,' the former Army Special Forces soldier wrote in his resignation letter.

'The time for bold action is now,' he urged. 'You can reverse course and chart a new path for our nation, or you can allow us to slip further toward decline and chaos. You hold the cards.'

Former Trump deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich suggested that Kent was already on track to be fired and called him a 'crazed egomaniac' responsible for 'national security leaks' out of his agency.

'He spent all of his time working to subvert the chain of command and undermine the President of the United States,' Budowich wrote on X upon news of his departure. 'This isn't some principled resignation—he just wanted to make a splash before getting canned. What a loser.'

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Kent's insistence that Iran posed no immediate threat to the US is the 'same false claim that Democrats… have been repeating over and over.'

She said that Trump had 'strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first.'

 

Kent swears his oath of office to work under Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center

Kent is closely aligned with the 'America First' wing of the Trump administration, and the President says upon news of his resignation: 'I always thought he was a nice guy'

Kent's wife, Shannon, above with their two sons, was killed by a suicide vest bombing in 2019 while she was in Syria. She was one of 19 people who died in the attack

 

'President Trump would never make the decision to deploy military assets against a foreign adversary in a vacuum,' she posted in a lengthy X post responding to Kent's resignation.

She listed other reasons, including calling Iran 'evil,' noting it is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and that the regime there 'proudly killed Americans, waged war against our country, and openly threatened us all the way up to the launch of Operation Epic Fury.'

Trump said that there would have been nuclear wars if he had not ended the Iran Nuclear Deal and then decided to engage in strikes in the country on February 28.

'If I didn't terminate Obama's horrible deal that he made – the Iran Nuclear Deal – you would have had a nuclear war, four years ago. You would have had [a] nuclear holocaust. And you would have had it again if we didn't bomb the site,' he said to press gathered in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

He said those who claim Iran didn't pose a threat are 'not smart' and 'not savvy.'

'We don't want those people,' Trump concluded.

ISRAEL NEEDS TO OCCUPY ALL OF SOUTHERN LEBANON FROM THE ISRAELI BORDER TO THE LITANI RIVER

‘Only IDF presence in Lebanon can defend northern Israel’

The goal of the IDF ground push into Lebanon is to stop Hezbollah from firing anti-tank missiles, RPGs and rockets at the Jewish state.

 

By Yaakov Lappin

 

Israel Today

Mar 17, 2026

 

 

The Israeli military confirmed on Monday that in recent days, troops from the 91st Division began “limited and targeted ground operations against key Hezbollah strongholds in Southern Lebanon.” 

 

The Israel Defense Forces has officially initiated ground operations in southern Lebanon, marking a major milestone in the campaign to push Hezbollah terror forces away from northern Israeli communities.

The Israeli military confirmed on Monday that in recent days, troops from the 91st Division began “limited and targeted ground operations against key Hezbollah strongholds in Southern Lebanon.”

The military stated that this activity is aimed at enhancing the forward defense area. These operations include the systematic dismantling of terrorist infrastructure and the elimination of terrorists operating in the area, aiming to remove threats and create “an additional layer of security for the residents of northern Israel,” the IDF stated.

Prior to the troops entering the area, the IDF said it conducted strikes using both artillery and the Israeli Air Force against numerous terrorist targets to mitigate threats in the operational environment. Concurrently, IDF soldiers continue to carry out defensive missions to protect Israeli communities in the Galilee.

Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed the intent of the ground incursion during a situational assessment held on Monday at the military headquarters in Tel Aviv, alongside the senior military brass, stating that the ground maneuver in Lebanon is aimed at removing threats and protecting the residents of the Galilee and the north.

The defense minister said hundreds of thousands of Shi’ite southern Lebanese residents have been evacuated from their homes and would “not return south of the Litani River until the security of [Israeli] northern residents is guaranteed.”

Referring to the slain leaders of Hezbollah and Iran, he added that if Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem “misses Nasrallah and Khamanei so much, he can meet them soon in the depths of hell together with all those eliminated from the axis of evil.”

Earlier on Monday, IDF International Spokesperson Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, speaking to journalists on a conference call, stressed that Hezbollah made a deliberate decision to join the war alongside the Iranian regime over two weeks ago.

Shoshani explained that the military’s main mission is to prevent a situation in which Hezbollah will infiltrate or fire rockets, missiles, or anti-tank RPGs “directly toward Israeli homes.”

He noted that Hezbollah has been firing approximately 100 rockets a day, sometimes peaking higher, and has sent hundreds of Radwan Unit commando terrorists down south towards the Israeli border.

The 91st Division’s ground operation is “targeted and limited,” said Shoshani, stating they are aimed at removing threats by operating in areas from which threats are posed against civilians.

Changing defense concept

Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Shaul Bartal, a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University who served extensively in various security capacities, told JNS on Sunday that Israel’s defense concept changed after Oct. 7, 2023, and the country is now in a situation where it cannot rely on “concepts of deterrence” against an attack.

“Our enemy can surprise us at any time, and therefore there is no feasibility of defending the northern communities without ground forces sitting inside Lebanese territory and defending the northern settlements from there,” said Bartal.

He recalled that the period of security prosperity for Israel’s northern communities was when the IDF actively controlled a security zone in Lebanon from 1985 to 2000.

However, Bartal noted that Israel has lost the ability to build a security zone based on local forces like the South Lebanon Army, many of whom were defined as traitors by Hezbollah following the sudden IDF withdrawal in 2000.

In such a situation, Bartal argued, the only option for a security zone is clearing the area and the villages, evacuating the population northwards, and establishing an Israeli security zone up to the Litani. From a military perspective, this is Israel’s best option, the former officer argued.

Bartal anticipated massive diplomatic efforts from the Lebanese government to prevent this outcome, potentially including declarations that the Lebanese army can handle Hezbollah or even the signing of a non-belligerency agreement with Israel.

“This diplomatic scenario is the only thing that could prevent the establishment of an Israeli military security zone up to the Litani River,” he said.

“We also must remember that part of the southern Lebanese villages are still ruined and have not begun rehabilitation. Hezbollah sustained heavy losses. Many of the southern [Lebanese] population have de facto evacuated north. The military scenario I describe of an Israeli control without almost any residents up to the Litani River is the reasonable military scenario.”

Creating a new buffer zone

Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah told JNS that the goal of the current operations is to push Hezbollah out of the area and create the buffer zone that Israel wants to establish in a future arrangement with the Lebanese government.

Neriah heavily criticized the Lebanese Armed Forces and its commander, Joseph Aoun, for failing to disarm Hezbollah south of the Litani as previously promised.

He explained that LAF Commander, Gen. Rodolphe Haykal, and the LAF representative overseeing the ceasefire, Brig. Gen. Nicolas Tabet, who is in charge of the southern sector in Lebanon, are looking ahead to a civilian political career. Haykal wants to be the president of Lebanon just as the former LAF chief, Joseph Aoun, had done.

To achieve this, Neriah argued,  Haykal “must cultivate his relationship with Hezbollah and avoid being antagonistic” toward the terror group.

This political calculus, Neriah added, is the reason the Lebanese army “has done nothing and why these commanders only blames Israel for violations of previous agreements while ignoring Hezbollah’s actions.

Analyzing the IDF’s likely intentions, Neriah assessed that the goal is to reach the third line of villages in southern Lebanon. This line may be north of the Litani River in the eastern sector and south of it in other areas, indicating that the intention is not to create a continuous line, “but rather to select strategic points.”

“This is a bargaining chip, which, in the context of negotiations over the security zone, or over the ceasefire with Lebanon,” said Neriah, enabling Jerusalem to demand a buffer zone under control and supervision of Israel and the United States.

Neriah also warned of the potential for a civil war in Lebanon if the Lebanese government were to actually order its army to act against Hezbollah.

He referenced threats from certain Lebanese officers, warning the army commander that the military would disintegrate if deployed against the terror group, an event that would shatter the fabric of the Lebanese state.

In addition to ground maneuvers, the IDF has been conducting extensive strikes against Hezbollah headquarters to dismantle the organization’s command structure.

FOR MANY ON THE LEFT AND THE NOISY YET LESS NUMEROUS FAR RIGHT, THE REASON NOT TO STOP THE MULLAHS IS THAT DOING SO MIGHT HELP ISRAEL IN THE PROCESS

Stopping Tehran’s apocalyptic goals is more important than thwarting Trump

Critics assert that the price America is paying to force the Islamic Republic to give up its nuclear ambitions and zeal for terrorism is too high. But the alternatives are far worse. 

 

By Jonathan S. Tobin 

 

JNS

Mar 16, 2026

 

 

A large billboard in Tel Aviv reads "Thank you God & Donald Trump!."

 

Two weeks after the start of the U.S.-Israeli offensive against Iran, naysayers about the wisdom of the operation remain pervasive and loud. The arguments against the war are based on a variety of concerns. The motivations of many of those denouncing the decisions of President Donald Trump are clearly partisan, ideological, and, in the case of a considerable percentage of those on the far right and left, connected to prejudice. 

Regardless of the validity of those complaints—and many, if not most, deserve to be dismissed—there is no avoiding the main question to be answered about such a conflict. Is it worth the cost in blood, money and political capital, both at home and abroad, that the administration is expending on a fight with no definite endpoint in sight?

And to that question, there are no easy answers. There is good reason to worry about whether the unintended negative consequences of the war will, in the long run, be viewed as more significant than the issues policymakers are currently obsessing about. 

Kicking the can down the road

Nevertheless, even the most reasonable skeptics of the effort, not to mention the deafening chorus of those partisans and ideologues predicting doom for Trump’s war plans, are largely failing to address another equally important question that must be answered. Is the cost of allowing the pre-war status quo to continue higher than those associated with the uncertainties of war? 

Iran was steadily rebuilding its nuclear program with an imminent option to race to a bomb, expanding missile production and continuing to orchestrate an “axis of resistance” dedicated to fomenting chaos and war. That’s more than enough to justify the risks of potential disaster that are an inevitable part of all wars. 

Like the question about the cost of war, the answer will only be clear after the fact. Yet even now, with the outcome of the campaign still somewhat in doubt, it’s obvious that continuing a policy of kicking the can down the road that Trump’s predecessors chose—either out of bad judgment, an unjustifiable sympathy for Tehran, cowardice or just plain apathy—would have been as colossal a mistake as even the costliest military blunder. 

The dangers that lie ahead are not limited to the short-term question of whether Washington and Jerusalem will achieve their objectives, which are aligned with each other but not identical. 

The first purpose of the campaign is the eradication of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic-missile programs, in addition to its support and active participation in international terrorism. Washington and Jerusalem are committed to those objectives, which they rightly see as not only crucial to their own countries but integral to the security of the West as a whole. Those are widely seen as achievable goals to one degree or another. 

Both governments have also stated that they favor regime change in Iran. That’s something Israel believes is absolutely necessary to achieve. The Trump administration would like it to happen, but could live without it, as long as the ayatollahs were stripped of their nukes and missiles, and had their terrorist option foreclosed. 

It’s far from clear whether the goal of toppling the Islamist government in Tehran can or will be accomplished. If a successful domestic uprising doesn’t happen, both countries are wisely reluctant to commit to a ground incursion on the scale required to install a new government. 

Economic and strategic problems

Still, the problems that are being generated by the war don’t only involve Iran retaining nuclear capability or whether the theocrats can cling to power. Just as important is whether the economic consequences of the war or its impact on equally important strategic problems faced elsewhere by the West will wind up overshadowing what happens in the Persian Gulf or the Middle East. 

With respect to economics, it’s obvious that Trump and his team—contrary to the false narratives about the war being impulsively decided on a presidential whim or as the result of sinister Israeli or Jewish pressure—were fully cognizant of the implications of combat in the region on the price of oil. That Iran might seek to stop its flow through the Strait of Hormuz was always a likely possibility. And it was a given that the price of oil, and consequently, the price of gas at the pump in the United States, would go up once the war started. 

A long-term jump in oil prices would harm the global economy, set back Trump’s objectives for American prosperity, and impact domestic politics and his party’s chances of retaining control of Congress in the midterm elections this fall. You don’t have to be an isolationist who opposes any foreign interventions to understand that any one of those things might be considered a good enough reason for an American president to hold off on efforts against Iran. 

The China factor

Added to that is the impact of the conflict on the international stage, where the United States is—whether many Americans fully understand it or not—locked in a geostrategic rivalry/conflict with Iran’s allies: Russia, and even more importantly, China. As historian Niall Ferguson, who supports action against Iran, has pointed out, this war must be seen in the context of a second Cold War in which the United States is facing off against what may prove to be a Chinese opponent that’s far more formidable than the Soviet Union was in the first such conflict in the 20th century. 

Removing the Iranian threat is a blow to China in terms of its strategic quest to dominate the globe and because it is an important source of oil to Beijing. But should the United States be embroiled in an unsuccessful war in the Middle East, this would help the Chinese elsewhere. And Russia is benefiting from the way the current war is increasing its oil and gas revenue, and serves as a distraction from its stalemated efforts to wear down Ukraine in that four-year-old war. 

As Ferguson writes this week in The Free Press, blocking the Strait of Hormuz for any appreciable period of time would be a disaster for Washington, as well as something that could set an unfortunate precedent for the ability of China and its allies to do the same thing in other important choke points, such as the Strait of Taiwan. It almost goes without saying that, as the analyst argues, “the longer the war lasts, the greater the domestic pressure on Trump; the heavier the costs for U.S. allies in Asia and Europe; the more money for Russia; and the greater the temptation for China.” 

Those risks are real. But to assume the sort of military failure or stalemate in Iran, as most of Trump’s critics do, that would generate that sort of scenario in which China profits from the war is not persuasive. 

While the success of the U.S.-Israeli offensive won’t be able to fully evaluated until after the conflict is over, it’s clear that both militaries have not been thwarted during the first two weeks of the joint campaign. To the contrary, they have systematically eliminated Iran’s military capabilities, hunted down its missile-launchers and done more damage to its nuclear program. 

The fact that a country as large as Iran is not completely defeated in two weeks is not a reason to believe the war has so far been a failure. If the armed forces of the two allies are allowed to continue their military efforts, the already devastating results for Iran will likely become even more impressive. It could possibly go a long way toward rendering the regime harmless to its neighbors and/or unable to resist the desire of its population for a new government. There is no reason to believe that the war is already a “quagmire,” other than the wish on the part of Trump’s opponents that this is what it will turn out to be. 

Even if the results are not everything the two governments would wish for, the arguments that say the United States would have been better off delaying action or even appeasing Iran, as the Obama and Biden administrations did, ring false. 

Partisan folly

The policy of enriching and empowering Tehran that was the consequence of former President Barack Obama’s signature foreign-policy achievement—the 2015 nuclear deal—was disastrous for the Middle East and for America. It led to a stronger and more aggressive Islamist regime. It encouraged its adventurism, hegemonic ambitions and willingness to start wars against Israel from Gaza and Lebanon via its terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the way its Houthi allies in Yemen sought to interdict international shipping in the Horn of Africa. 

More than that, letting Iran get a nuclear weapon, as Obama’s pact guaranteed, or race to one, as became an increasingly likely scenario in the last year, would have done far more damage to U.S. interests than even a permanent hike in gas prices or an emboldened Beijing. Economic and strategic thinkers are right to ponder what may follow the current campaign, and whether some or all of the fallout from it will be problematic or wind up working out in ways that we cannot foresee. But letting a tyrannical regime ruled by religious fanatics bent on imposing their version of fanatical Islam on the Middle East and the rest of the world get a nuclear weapon to blackmail and intimidate opponents would be a nightmare. 

And that would have been the inevitable result if the United States hadn’t prepared to act at some point in the near future. While Washington could have waited until the threat was so imminent that averting it would have been as catastrophic as waiting for it to happen, Trump wisely decided that forestalling that scenario was worth the risk. 

While the calculus involved in determining that acting in 2026 was far less costly and dangerous than waiting until some point in the future, what cannot be debated is that stopping Iran was in almost everyone’s interests. To treat the need to stop the apocalyptic implications of an Iranian bomb as somehow less important than short-term increases in the price of fuel or theoretical advantages that might fall to Beijing is like comparing fatal cancer to a broken limb. The latter is painful and can impair one’s lifestyle. The former is to envision a chronic global catastrophe carried out by theocrats with no compunction about slaughtering innocents. 

The failure to acknowledge this basic premise is what makes so much of the criticism of the administration unpersuasive. 

And that brings us back to the motivations of the critics. As was apparent from the first days of the war, most of those opposing Trump on Iran are doing so for partisan reasons. 

While polls show that a majority of Americans oppose the war, those who drill down into public opinion on the issue also show that far larger majorities agree with Trump on the nature of the threat from Iran and the necessity to deal with it. However, when simply asked about whether they favor the president’s policies, their replies are in keeping with the hyper-partisan nature of contemporary American society. 

Democrats are united against the president’s decision to an extent unprecedented in the history of opposition parties at a time of war. Having committed themselves to a view of Trump as a complete villain (and a fascist authoritarian at that), few among his foes seem willing, as previous generations of Americans had done, to let politics stop at the water’s edge, even when vital American interests are at stake. 

As veteran Democratic lawyer David Boies wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal, every previous president of the last quarter-century agreed that Iran posed a threat that needed to be addressed. Yet virtually the entire Democratic Party has been opposed to acting on that imperative, and they’re not doing so because they are worried about oil prices or thinking China might find a way to gain from it. The only reason for their opposition is that Trump is doing it.  

The other reason for opposing action against Iran is, if possible, even more contemptible. 

An argument rooted in hate

For many on the left and on the noisy yet less numerous far right, the reason not to stop the mullahs is that doing so might help Israel in the process. 

As sober analysts, as well as Trump and his team, have pointed out, the Jewish state and its leaders didn’t strong-arm or even really persuade the United States to do something that was just as much an American imperative as an Israeli one. 

The fact that since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the Islamic Republic has sought the elimination of the one Jewish state on the planet—the “Little Satan” and the “Great Satan” of the United States—was an argument against restraining them for those ideologues on the left and the right who sympathize with that goal. 

The antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories that have been floated in recent months and weeks about Israeli and Jewish influence over American policy weren’t so much based on false conceptions about U.S. interests as it was in hostility to the safety or existence of Jews. That those, like podcaster Tucker Carlson, who traffic in Jew-hatred, didn’t want Washington to act with Jerusalem to prevent the genocide of its population, even if it also meant buttressing American security, isn’t surprising. But as Carlson’s confession about his communications with the Islamist regime in the run-up to the war makes clear, the loyalty of extremists who hate Israel and Jews is more with those who share their vile beliefs than it is to the United States, let alone Trump. 

Americans can and should be conducting a conversation about the cost/benefits of the war. Given the uncertainty involved in any military conflict, there is always the possibility that the fight will lead to results that will ultimately determine that the risk wasn’t worth it. 

Yet alongside that discussion must be one about the costs of letting Iran go on seeking, and ultimately acquiring, the nukes and missiles that would transform the world for the worse. Preventing a terrorist Islamist regime from gaining such power will always be a higher priority than even sensible efforts to keep oil prices down or conserve U.S. resources just to be able to deal with other threats posed by China and Russia. 

Instead, all we’re hearing from Trump’s opponents is partisan bile or antisemitic invective. That is not a debate that has anything to do with American interests or costs; it’s an irresponsible and hateful agenda that deserves no respect. 

FOR DECADES, ISRAEL HAS SERVED BOTH AS A PROVING GROUND FOR AMERICAN DEFENSE TECHNOLOGIES AND AS A SOURCE OF INNOVATIONS THAT AMERICAN SYSTEMS LATER ADOPT

The core root of ‘Pax Silica’

How the U.S.-Israel partnership is evolving into the technological backbone of the free world. 

 

By Jeff Ballabon 

 

JNS

Mar 17, 2026

 

 

A U.S. Navy sailor signals an F/A-18E Super Hornet preparing to launch on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in support of Operation Epic Fury, March 4, 2026.

 

One of the administration’s recent talking points offers an unexpected glimpse into how global power is changing. The White House and officials at the highest levels have described the skies over Tehran as effectively dominated by “the two most powerful air forces in the world, the United States and Israel.”

At first glance, placing Israel alongside the United States in that formulation sounds surprising. One country is the world’s leading superpower of more than 330 million people; the other is a long-embattled nation of fewer than 10 million.

The phrase is all the more striking coming from an administration led by U.S. President Donald Trump, whose political vision and rhetoric consistently emphasize American primacy and exceptionalism. To place Israel on equal footing with the United States in such a context signals how deeply the two nations’ military and technological capabilities have become intertwined.

And it may point toward something larger about the future of the alliance between the two countries.

In modern warfare—characterized by software, cyber capabilities, satellites and artificial intelligence—the decisive factor is no longer simply size. Technological sophistication and rapid innovation increasingly determine military power.

For decades, Israel has served both as a proving ground for American defense technologies and as a source of innovations that American systems later adopt and scale. Missile defense, cyber capabilities, intelligence tools and unmanned systems all illustrate this pattern—technologies refined under Israel’s intense security pressures, and then integrated into broader American and allied capabilities.

Today, that technological dimension of alliance is official policy. The U.S. State Department now uses the term Pax Silica to describe an emerging framework of trusted technology partnerships among allied nations designed to secure supply chains, accelerate innovation and defend the infrastructure of the digital age.

Within that broader initiative, Israel occupies a uniquely central role.

Author and technologist Bryant McGill has suggested that Pax Silica may represent more than just a network of technological cooperation. He argues that Washington and Jerusalem together are emerging as something closer to the nucleus of a new strategic architecture built around technological power. He describes the relationship as a kind of “dual-platform Western security organism,” in which the two nations operate not merely as allies but as mutually reinforcing engines of innovation and scale.

The concept is ambitious, but the intuition behind it captures something very real.

For decades, the U.S.-Israel alliance has been explained primarily through two lenses. One emphasizes geopolitics: intelligence cooperation, military coordination and shared strategic interests in a volatile region. The other points to deeper affinities between two democratic societies shaped by innovation, freedom and the legitimacy of self-defense.

Both explanations are true.

Critics, meanwhile, offer a simpler narrative. Across the ideological spectrum, conspiracy theories about the alliance persist—claims that American support for Israel must be explained by manipulation rather than interests and strategy. As the technological and strategic logic of the relationship becomes clearer, however, those arguments collapse into caricature and hysteria.

What many observers long sensed may now be revealing a deeper structural explanation.

For many Americans, the bond with Israel has always seemed to possess a dimension beyond realpolitik. Often described in emotional or spiritual terms, it reflects two nations that see echoes of themselves in one another. What was once called a “special relationship” has indeed been something more concrete: the innovation engine of a broader democratic security order.

American exceptionalism—rooted in the belief that a nation can organize political life around liberty, covenant and moral purpose—has long found its mirror in Israel’s own sense of national mission.

That parallel is not accidental. The Founders of the United States drew openly from the Hebrew Bible. In building the American republic, they sought to create a society that would serve as an example to the world—what later generations would call a “city upon a hill,” echoing the words of Massachusetts Bay founder John Winthrop and reflecting an older biblical idea: that a nation organized around moral law could serve as a light unto the nations.

Beneath those traditions lies something deeper. It is a shared conviction that human life carries moral significance and that free societies exist to protect and elevate it.

It is precisely this idea—of societies organized around liberty, moral law and human dignity—that has long made both nations targets of intense hostility. The United States and Israel are not threatening because they seek to impose their systems on others, but because their very existence challenges regimes and ideologies built on coercion and hierarchy. It is no coincidence that critics from opposite ends of the political spectrum increasingly sound indistinguishable in their attacks on both countries. However different their rhetoric, movements that reject the liberal democratic order often converge in hostility toward the societies that most visibly embody it.

Seen through that lens, the technological partnership between the United States and Israel becomes easier to understand.

In some ways, the U.S.-Israel relationship combines the strengths of a startup and an industrial giant: Israel innovates like a startup, and America scales those innovations globally. What begins as rapid experimentation in Israel can become global capability through American power.

Israel’s security environment forces constant experimentation. Technologies are conceived, tested and deployed under real-world pressure through an unusually dense network of military units, universities, and venture capital. The United States contributes something equally essential: scale—vast capital markets, research institutions and the industrial infrastructure capable of deploying those innovations globally.

The result is not merely an alliance but something closer to a shared security innovation ecosystem.

Observers outside the Middle East have begun to recognize this dynamic as well. As China-Israel analyst Carice Witte has noted, strategists across the Indo-Pacific are studying the conflict not simply as a regional war but as an example of how American alliances function in an era of great-power competition.

Beijing, in particular, is examining the operational integration between the United States and Israel—shared intelligence, coordinated air operations and rapid technological adaptation—as evidence of how deeply allied systems can operate in high-intensity conflict.

Seen in this light, Pax Silica may represent not a replacement for the order that has governed the free world since the end of World War II but its technological evolution.

For nearly eight decades, Pax Americana rested on American military strength, economic leadership and alliances that sustained the democratic world’s security architecture. After the Cold War, the United States briefly appeared to stand alone as the world’s “unipower.”

Today, that dominance faces growing challenges—most notably, from China and the expanding ambitions of its sphere of influence.

The response is not the abandonment of the American-led order but its adaptation.

In an era defined by artificial intelligence, cyber warfare and space-based infrastructure, alliances rooted in technological ecosystems will increasingly determine international stability. Within that evolving architecture, the U.S.-Israel alliance occupies a singularly powerful role.

Two societies shaped by similar civilizational instincts—innovation, freedom and personal responsibility—have developed complementary strengths: one excels at rapid invention, the other at scaling those inventions across the world.

As new technologies enable enemies—foreign, domestic and perhaps even machine—to threaten what remains of the free world, the association that critics dismiss as sentiment or attack may prove to be something far more consequential: the defining strategic connection of the technological age.

UNITREE G1 BUSTED BY CHINESE COPS

First robot ARREST revealed: Watch the moment a humanoid is detained by police after terrifying an elderly woman in China

 

By William Hunter 

 

Daily Mail

Mar 16, 2026

 

 

A bizarre video shows the moment a humanoid robot is arrested by police after terrifying an elderly woman in China

 

In what sounds like a scene from a science fiction thriller, a humanoid robot has been arrested by police after terrifying an elderly woman in China. 

According to local authorities, the 70–year–old woman was startled by the robot when she suddenly noticed it standing behind her. 

A viral clip shows the woman yelling and waving her bag at the diminutive bot, which repeatedly raises its arms in the air.

Footage then shows two police officers escorting the Unitree G1 down the road, with one leading the robot by its shoulder. 

Police told reporters that the woman had stopped to check her phone when the robot halted behind her, waiting for her to clear the path.

The elderly pedestrian was then 'frightened' to discover that the robot was silently following her down the road.

Following the incident, the woman told police that she was feeling unwell and was taken to hospital for a check–up and treatment. 

After doctors confirmed there was no physical altercation between her and the robot, the unnamed woman said that she wouldn't be filing a complaint against the bot's operator.  

The altercation occurred at 21:00 local time outside a residential complex in Macau, China. 

In the video, according to a translation by the Macau Post, the woman can be seen yelling: 'You're making my heart race!

'You've got plenty to do, so what's the point of messing around with this? Are you freaking crazy?'  

While the robot was not officially arrested, police did remove it from the scene and returned it to its operator, a man in his 50s, who was reminded to exercise caution.

However, on social media, the short clip of a robot being escorted away by police has sparked a wave of memes, as commenters joke that this is the 'first robot arrest in history'.

On X, one commenter joked: 'Looks like the robot needs a lawyer or some basic rights.'

'We are rapidly approaching a new wacky timeline,' added another.

One asked: 'Did the robot have a mugshot? Did the robot go to court?'

 

A viral clip shows the woman yelling and waving her bag at a Unitree G1 robot, which repeatedly raises its arms in the air

 

While one chimed in: 'This is exactly how the matrix started.'

However, others were far less sympathetic, blaming the elderly woman for overreacting to the robot's presence.

One commenter coldly wrote: 'Clearly the woman is the problem, not the robot.'

'Lock that woman up for impeding a robotic lifeform,' another added.

Authorities revealed that the robot belonged to a nearby education centre, which had been using the Unitree G1 robot as part of a promotion.

Towin Mak, a spokesperson for the education centre, told local broadcaster Teledifusão de Macau (TDM) that the robot was leaving the area when it encountered the elderly woman.

Mr Mak added that it was being guided by a mix of autonomous programming and remote supervision at the time. 

The robot's operator has apologised for causing distress. 

 

Following the incident, the 70–year–old woman told police that she was feeling unwell and was taken to hospital for a check–up and treatment. She later decided to bring a complaint against the robot's operator 

 

While this may be the first time that the police have had to bring a robot into custody, police forces are already making robots part of their approach to fighting crime. 

Professor Ivan Sun, from the University of Delaware, previously predicted that robotic police officers would be patrolling our streets in just five years.

These real–life robocops will be able to detect, pursue and apprehend suspects – likely working alongside human supervisors.

Meanwhile, countries like China and Singapore have begun trialling robotic police robots, with varying degrees of success.

For example, the Xavier robot in Singapore patrols public spaces to detect 'undesirable social behaviours' such as smoking before relaying the information to human officers.

While in China, AI–powered robots such as the AnBot have been integrated into security systems to conduct surveillance, verify identities and patrol transport hubs. In the UAE, robots have been used in more service–oriented roles such as greeting tourists or providing multilingual assistance during large events.

VIDEO REVEALS THAT IN 1987 TRUMP SAID HE WOULD ATTACK IRAN IF HE WERE PRESIDENT

Shocking video shows Donald Trump discussing his Iran war plans in 1987

 

By Chris Melore 

 

Daily Mail

Mar 16, 2026

 

 

Donald Trump's comments during a 1987 interview with late journalist Barbara Walters (Left) appear to show Trump's intentions of attacking Iran four decades ago

 

Footage has emerged of President Donald Trump warning of the threat posed by Iran's Supreme Leader and America's goals in a war with the nation, 39 years ago. 

The video captured an interview with late journalist and television personality Barbara Walters in December 1987, where Trump appeared to predict the current crisis in the Middle East and laid out his war plans if he were president.

At age 41, Trump said: 'The next time Iran attacks this country, go in and grab one of their big oil installations and I mean grab it and keep it and get back your losses because this country has lost plenty because of Iran.'

Trump also dismissed the possibility that Russia, formerly the Soviet Union, would send in troops to defend their allies in Iran, adding that he was more concerned about Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, calling him 'something like nobody's ever seen.'

The real estate mogul's prophetic comments came four decades before the US and Israel would launch a devastating military campaign that has already killed Iran's current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

'You're going to have a war, and it's going to start in the Middle East,' Trump predicted to Walters during the interview.

The Walters interview on ABC's 20/20 also revealed how the future two-term president had spent thousands on newspaper ads criticizing the US for protecting foreign oil tankers without compensation when Iran was attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Today, oil prices have surged as fighting in the Persian Gulf has spread to the sea, with Iranian drones targeting the Strait of Hormuz, and the Pentagon is once again considering using the US Navy to protect oil shipments headed west.

 

                          

                          A tanker engulfed in fierce flames after strike by Iran

 

The unearthed interview featured excerpts from Trump's appearance at New Hampshire's Portsmouth Rotary Club in October 1987, a luncheon where influential people could test the political waters before a potential run for office.

In a stunning echo of Trump's future political addresses, the billionaire was captured saying: 'I'm personally tired of seeing this great country of ours being ripped off.'

Decades later, Trump's remarks at the event have been called his 'first campaign speech,' as the president has continually called for European countries to spend more on their own defense.

Trump's 1987 call for a tougher stance on Iran and more financial backing from US allies in Europe and throughout the region has eerily mirrored the current situation, with the president demanding NATO send warships to police the Strait of Hormuz.

The president insisted on Saturday that Britain, France and China should 'send ships to the area so that the Strait will no longer be threatened by a nation that has been totally decapitated.'

Speaking to the Financial Times, Trump said: 'It's only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the Strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there.

'We have a thing called NATO,' Trump continued. 'We've been very sweet. We didn't have to help them with Ukraine… but we helped them.'

'Now we'll see if they help us. Because I've long said that we'll be there for them, but they won't be there for us. And I'm not sure that they'd be there.'

 

Pictured: Oil tankers sail near the Strait of Hormuz on March 11, 2026

 

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is thought to have already pushed back on this demand, reportedly saying that the British military was only ready to deploy minesweeping drones to clear out the important shipping lane.

In the 1987 interview, Trump floated the idea of forcing other nations to pay the US to protect the world's oil shipments sailing through the Strait of Hormuz, calling the fee for the Navy's work 'a ransom.'

'We made a huge mistake by going into the Persian Gulf without having negotiated a fair and reasonable deal before with all of the beneficiaries of the Persian Gulf,' Trump said.

'I would have said, "hey folks, let's get together, how much you're gonna pay for this?" and, you know what, give you a little secret, Barbara, they'll pay a ransom.'

As for Trump's plans for seizing Iran's oil, something that has not become reality yet, the New York businessman asked the Portsmouth Rotary Club: 'Why couldn't we go in and take over some of their oil, which is along the sea?'

 

The US and Israeli militaries have been carrying out devastating bombing raids on Iran. As the conflict has escalated, oil prices worldwide have spiked

 

When Walters pressed a 41-year-old Trump on how he would carry out such an operation, the future president would not definitively say he would send in ground troops to take Iran's oil fields - something Trump has still not committed to doing in 2026.

Despite not revealing the details in 1987, Trump's war plan may be playing itself out in real time, as the US military has already bombed Iran's biggest and most important oil facilities, the Kharg Island oil terminal.

The small island in the Persian Gulf handles approximately 90 percent of Iran's crude oil exports, totaling over a million barrels per day.

US forces have struck military targets on Kharg Island in March 2026, but have reportedly avoided hitting the oil facilities themselves to prevent a total shutdown that could spike global oil prices even further.