Richard Wolff joins Mnar Adley to look at tensions between the United States and Europe as energy, trade, and foreign policy begin to pull them apart. Disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz push oil prices higher and add pressure across the global economy. Europe faces deindustrialization after cutting off Russian energy, while countries like Spain move toward closer ties with China. NATO weakens as these divisions deepen, with broader shifts in global power shaping the situation.

Journalist Eli Hassell invited Professor Richard Wolff to discuss the political fall out domestically and internationally of the United States & Israel war with Iran.

Subscribe now

Share

Debate over Trump’s mental health continues alongside his public behavior, including increasingly erratic social media posts and the escalation of conflict with Iran. Polling shows widespread dissatisfaction with the US system as a whole, not just individual leaders. Richard Wolff and Nicole Roussell discuss how these political questions connect to broader economic and institutional conditions in the United States.

The United States is facing a mounting housing affordability crisis—one that has intensified political pressure on Congress to act. Rising home prices, limited housing supply, and persistent rental costs have combined to create a market where both homeownership and stable renting are increasingly out of reach for millions.

A Market Under Strain

Over the past several years, the U.S. housing market has undergone a sharp transformation. Home prices surged rapidly in the early part of the decade, driven in part by historically low interest rates and constrained inventory. At the same time, the country has faced a long-term housing shortage, largely due to years of underbuilding relative to population growth.

For prospective homeowners, this has created a steep barrier to entry. Many are now priced out entirely, particularly first-time buyers without generational wealth or significant savings.

Renters have not been spared. Although median monthly rents have declined for over two years, they remain significantly elevated—15.2% higher as of January compared to pre-2020 levels, according to Realtor.com data. This sustained increase continues to strain household budgets nationwide.

Compounding the issue, homelessness has reached its highest level since federal tracking began in 2007. Recent data indicates an 18% increase in homelessness in 2024 alone, underscoring the severity and urgency of the crisis.

Congressional Response: Two Bills, One Goal

In response, both chambers of Congress have advanced major housing legislation aimed at addressing affordability—primarily by increasing housing supply.

In February, the House of Representatives passed the Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644) by an overwhelming vote of 390–9. The bill focuses on expanding development incentives and reducing barriers to construction.

Shortly after, on March 12, the Senate passed its own version, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (S.Amdt. 4308), with strong bipartisan support in an 89–10 vote. Like the House bill, it prioritizes boosting housing supply as the primary mechanism for lowering costs.

A Key Point of Contention: Institutional Investors

While both bills share similar objectives, the Senate version introduces a more aggressive and controversial provision targeting institutional investors in the single-family housing market.

Under the Senate proposal, large investors—defined as those owning 350 or more single-family homes—would be prohibited from permanently holding these properties as rental assets. Instead, they would be required to sell the homes to individual buyers after a seven-year period. The legislation also mandates that these homes be offered under more favorable terms than are currently standard in the market.

Supporters argue that this measure would help rebalance the housing market by prioritizing individual ownership over corporate accumulation. Critics, however, warn it could disrupt rental supply and face significant opposition from real estate and investment stakeholders.

Legislative Outlook: Uncertain Path Forward

Despite passing both chambers with overwhelming bipartisan support, the path to a unified housing bill remains uncertain.

Housing advocates have largely favored the Senate’s approach, citing its more comprehensive attempt to address structural market imbalances. However, House leadership has signaled resistance to adopting the Senate’s version, particularly due to its provisions on institutional investors.

This divergence raises the likelihood of prolonged negotiations—or potential legislative gridlock—at a time when urgency is high.

The Bottom Line

The current moment reflects a rare alignment in Washington: broad agreement that the housing crisis demands federal action. However, consensus on how to solve it remains elusive.

Until a unified bill is passed, the affordability challenges facing renters, aspiring homeowners, and vulnerable populations will continue to intensify—leaving one of the country’s most fundamental economic issues unresolved

Sources

• NPR

• WHYY

• NLIHC

• HousingFinance.com

• EndHomeless.org

Subscribe now

Share

Richard Wolff and Michael Hudson on Dialogue Works examine how the war with Iran is destabilizing the global economy and adding pressure on US power. Oil prices and geopolitical risk drive volatility across financial markets, raising the possibility of a wider downturn. US policy remains centered on control over energy and strategic regions, while other countries reassess alliances and look for alternatives shaped by long standing tensions with Iran.

Richard Wolff speaks with Redi Tlhabi on UpFront about the economic fallout from the war in Iran. Rising oil prices drive market volatility and feed into a broader global slowdown, while US defense spending and debt levels point to a deepening fiscal crisis. Supply chain disruptions hit agriculture through higher fertilizer and fuel costs, adding pressure on food production. The military industrial complex expands alongside the conflict, while China’s continued growth highlights the shifting balance in the global economy.

Richard Wolff joins Rachel Blevins to discuss how the Iran war is restructuring the global economic order. Disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz drive up oil and gas prices and threaten long term energy supply, putting pressure on Europe and the Gulf states. The petrodollar system faces new challenges as trade and alliances begin to shift. Economic retaliation and sanctions deepen the conflict, while a more multipolar world starts to take shape around these changes.

Richard Wolff joins Glenn Diesen to look at how a war with Iran would affect the global economy and accelerate the decline of US power. Disruptions to oil supply push energy prices higher and risk a wider economic shock, while rising military spending adds to debt and financial strain. The conflict feeds into domestic political pressure and exposes the limits of US influence abroad. High youth unemployment and economic instability create conditions for growing political unrest, as broader shifts in the global economy reshape the balance of power.

As almost all countries throughout the world are making efforts to reduce global warming, exciting news has come from the People’s Republic of China (China or PRC). Planet-warming emissions from China have continued to flatline or fall as cleaner forms of energy outpace coal and gas generation.

This trend, if sustained, could mark a pivotal turning point. Analysts suggest that China’s emissions from energy production may peak within the next two years, signaling a structural shift in global fossil fuel dependence and a critical milestone in efforts to slow atmospheric warming. According to research from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, emissions across major sectors have declined over the past year, continuing a slowdown that began in May 2024.

China’s approach has been deliberate: aggressively scaling renewable energy technologies while acknowledging its role in the global climate crisis and the necessity of emissions reduction targets.

“This is an important piece of work,” noted Jackson Ewing, director of energy and climate policy at the Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability. “Given that we’re looking at close to a two-year plateau and slight decline, it’s more likely than ever that this is here to stay. The overall emissions trajectory for China is likely to remain relatively flat in the near term before beginning a more pronounced decline.”

China became the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter in 2006, surpassing the United States. However, its historical contribution to cumulative emissions remains comparatively lower—accounting for approximately 11% of global emissions between 1850 and 2021. On a per-capita basis, China’s emissions are roughly half those of the U.S.

Key 2025 Developments

Several indicators from 2025 reinforce the momentum behind China’s clean energy transition:

• CO₂ emissions declined year-over-year across most major sectors:

  • Transport: down 3%

  • Power generation: down 1.5%

  • Building materials: down 7%

• The chemicals sector was a notable exception, with emissions rising 12%.

• Clean energy expansion accelerated:

  • Solar output increased by 43%

  • Wind power grew by 14%

  • Nuclear energy rose by 8%

• Coal generation declined by 1.9%, reflecting displacement by renewables.

Global Context and the Paris Agreement Gap

China’s progress must be viewed within the broader international climate framework. Of the 194 signatories to the Paris Climate Agreement, only a small fraction—approximately 15 countries—are currently on track to meet their commitments. Most of these are smaller nations, while major emitters such as China, the United States, India, and the European Union remain off course to meet even the 2°C target, let alone the more ambitious 1.5°C goal.

This already fragile trajectory is now further complicated by escalating geopolitical tensions involving Iran and the reported disruption of oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz—a critical chokepoint through which a significant share of the world’s oil supply passes. Any sustained blockage or instability in this corridor has immediate implications for global energy markets, typically driving sharp increases in oil prices. In the short term, such price shocks can incentivize expanded fossil fuel production and consumption among major economies seeking energy security, potentially undermining emissions reduction efforts and delaying clean energy transitions.

Compounding this global shortfall are recent policy reversals in the United States under Donald Trump. As in his previous term, Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. Additionally, on February 12, 2026, his administration revoked the “endangerment finding”—a cornerstone of federal climate policy established in 2009 by the Environmental Protection Agency. That ruling had determined that six key greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO₂), posed a threat to public health, thereby mandating regulatory action.

Further actions have included efforts to curtail the expansion of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, while increasing reliance on oil and coal. In the context of rising global oil prices and supply uncertainty tied to tensions in the Persian Gulf, these policy shifts risk reinforcing fossil fuel dependence at precisely the moment when coordinated international decarbonization is most critical.

Conclusion

China’s emissions plateau—and potential near-term peak—represents a significant inflection point in the global climate landscape. However, the convergence of geopolitical instability, energy market volatility, and policy divergence among major powers introduces new uncertainty into the pace of the global energy transition. While China’s trajectory demonstrates that large-scale emissions stabilization is achievable, the broader question is whether other major emitters will maintain that course amid rising security concerns and economic pressures tied to fossil fuel supply.

Sources

• Carbon Brief: Analysis: China’s CO2 emissions

• Carbon Brief: Analysis: The Paris Agreement on Climate Change

• Carbon Brief: Q&A: What does Trump’s repeal of US ‘endangerment finding’ mean for climate action?

• Inside Climate News

• Canary Media

Subscribe now

Share

Richard Wolff joins Brian Becker on The Socialist Program to look at mounting military and economic pressure on the United States. The war with Iran drives up costs in both lives and spending, while tariffs fall apart after a Supreme Court ruling and fail to generate the expected revenue. Expanding military budgets and ongoing conflicts deepen deficits and national debt, putting pressure on programs like Social Security. Public support weakens as these strains build, reflecting broader limits in US policy at home and abroad.

Richard Wolff joins Robinson Erhardt to look at tensions involving Iran, Israel, and the broader trajectory of US global power. Long standing US policy toward Iran shapes current conflicts, while Trump-era decisions continue to influence regional dynamics. Military escalation carries economic consequences at home and abroad, especially through energy markets and global instability. Israel’s position appears increasingly exposed within these shifting conditions, as wider changes in the global economy and technology, including AI, reshape the balance of power.

We are on the brink of a Third World war—a moment that feels both entirely avoidable and, at the same time, inevitable.

Lately on social media I have noticed memes and videos circulating that, explains in the canonical history of Star Trek, Earth entered its third world war in 2026. Was Gene Roddenberry prophetic, or did he simply observe the arc of history and project a plausible timeline that aligns with humanity’s unshakable stupidity?

The Strauss–Howe generational theory—often framed as the “Fourth Turning”—argues that roughly every 80 to 100 years, societies face a crisis that fundamentally reshapes them. This idea is not unique. Arnold Toynbee is often quoted as saying, “When the last man who remembers the horrors of the last great war dies, the next great war becomes inevitable.” World War 2 ended in in 1945 and the people who lived through that time have since passed on or were too young to fully grasp the horror I am reminded of what Mark Twain observed, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”

The cyclical nature of human history does not require rocket science to understand it, only open eyes. Human beings repeatedly produce systems—and leaders—that lead to instability, conflict, and destruction. Capitalism and the capitalist class being the latest.

I began with Star Trek, one of the most influential science fiction franchises of all time, because science fiction often serves as allegory— as both cautionary tales and aspirational roadmaps. Stories like Star Trek and Star Wars have played that dual role for generations. For some, they even function like religion.

However as an evolved and enlightened culture we recognize these stories as stories, things to take lessons from but not necessary govern our world view. If a politician ran for office claiming to use “the Force” to guide public policy, they would be ridiculed and dismissed. They might attract a fringe following, (myself included lol) but they would not be taken seriously.

In the 1980s, former First Lady Nancy Reagan regularly consulted an astrologer, Joan Quigley, using her advice to help determine President Ronald Reagan’s schedule. The media criticized the administration for allowing superstition to influence governance, while republican politicians and the white house scrambled to distance and downplay the first lady’s influence on the Presidency.

In contrast when George W. Bush claimed that “God told him to end tyranny in Iraq,” in the early 2000s reactions were a bit more mixed. Some media outlets questioned the statement, but others defended it. Political allies of the President reinforced the narrative, and evangelical voters felt validated. A crack had formed in the wall separating church and state—allowing whimsicalness and religious superstition to “enter the chat”.

The United States was founded on principles rooted in the so-called Age of Enlightenment. Thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau inspired a reimagining of the social contract—the idea that people could govern themselves without the authority of monarchs or the church. This was radical idea changed the social contract in Europe and in America’s case, it led to revolution.

The architects of the United States believed that reason—not superstition—should guide those in power. Government would derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and policy would be shaped through rational debate, not divine revelation.

The separation of church and state was embedded into the Constitution. The First Amendment explicitly prohibits the establishment of religion. This directly contradicts claims by many on the right that the United States was somehow founded as a Christian nation.

Regardless of the framers’ intent and decades of court decisions reinforcing that separation, recent rulings and political movements have blurred the line. Personal religious beliefs—no matter how extreme—have increasingly influenced law and governance. We have seen rulings that support public funding for religious schools, permit prayer in public institutions, restrict LGBTQ+ rights, and overturn longstanding precedents such as Roe v. Wade. These shifts signal a broader ideological transformation. As a result, emboldened Christian nationalists now occupy key positions across government—including within political leadership and elements of the military.

Recent reports suggest that U.S. service members have been told by commanding officers that conflict with Iran is part of a biblical “End Times” prophecy. According to complaints filed by troops, briefings have referenced the Book of Revelation, Armageddon, and the idea that war is part of “God’s divine plan.” Watchdog organizations report that more than 200 such complaints have been filed across multiple military branches.

The current secretary of defense (or war depending on who you talk to), Pete Hegseth is a known Christian fundamentalist, who wrote in his 2020 book "American Crusade, "those who enjoy Western civilization should "thank a crusader." has been reportedly holding hosts monthly church services for defense department employees, ordered the production of military propaganda videos with Bible verses alongside military footage. This month the secretary’s religious rhetoric to the press is causing alarm to some. Hegseth recently said to CBS’ 60 minutes, “The providence of our almighty God is there protecting those troops, and we’re committed to this mission.” This unapologetic religiosity is dangerous to a secular society.

Historically, religion has often been used by elites to mobilize populations and justify violence. Monarchs ruled by divine right. Empires expanded in the name of God. Wars were framed as sacred duties rather than what they often were: struggles for power, territory, and wealth, i.e. “Hegseth’s crusades”.

The American experiment was meant to depart from that model—despite its own contradictions. While the nation spoke of liberty and equality, it simultaneously upheld slavery and enabled the genocide of Indigenous peoples. Still in spite of the cognitive dissonance and baked in hypocrisy of the men crafting the constitution, the founders understood the dangers of theocracy and sought to prevent it.

Despite technological advancement and increased access to information, the past several decades has seen the consolidation of religious influence within American politics. The Christian Right has largely captured the Republican Party and continues to exert influence across the broader political landscape.

A significant segment of American Christians believes that the return of Christ is tied to a sequence of End Times events—often associated with the modern state of Israel. In this framework, geopolitical conflict is not merely political; it is prophetic. This belief system represents a powerful voting bloc and a major source of political funding.

Political opportunists have long recognized the utility of this alignment. Evangelical voters see prophecy fulfilled. Politicians secure loyalty. Defense contractors benefit from sustained conflict. For years, it functioned as a mutually beneficial indulgence.

Now, however, we are witnessing a convergence: individuals once dismissed as fringe are increasingly occupying positions of real authority. This shift is occurring alongside declining public trust, geopolitical instability, and waning global support for U.S. foreign policy.

Benjamin Netanyahu has advocated for military action against Iran for decades but previously lacked a willing U.S. partner. Until Trump no President was foolish enough to start a serious conflict with Iran. The American people has no stomach for this war following unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan people are over it.

With 60 percent disapproval according to polling, and a limited ability to justify our actions on strategic or defensive grounds, war hawks and some conservatives are shifting the narratives toward religious a framing—casting war as divinely sanctioned.

I am not a constitutional professor but I believe it is safe to state emphatically that, the Constitution does not authorize holy wars! Members of the military swear an oath to defend the Constitution—not religious prophecy. Armageddon is not a strategic objective. The Rapture is not a post-war reconstruction plan.

The United States has long criticized extremist groups for waging religious wars—labeling them backward and dangerous. Even now the terms radicals, and zealots are being thrown around to describe those in the Middle East, The pot is definitely calling the kettle black, or the lunatic is calling cleric crazy, take your pick.

The question we must ask ourselves: Is the government being driven by genuine religious zealots who believe they are ushering in the End Times? Or by calculated actors who understand the power of such beliefs and exploit them to justify policy?

The answer is likely both.

History shows us that elites rarely act on religious conviction alone. More often, religion regularly deployed as a tool to mobilize support while underlying motives—power, profit, and control—remain the true drivers.

At the same time, there is a growing presence of leaders who openly reject scientific consensus, dismiss empirical evidence, and prioritize ideological authority over institutional norms. Recent policy directions—impacting education, public health, and environmental regulation—raise serious concerns about governance grounded in evidence and accountability.

Taken together, this creates a volatile mix: ideological extremism combined with political opportunism.

And that is what makes this moment particularly dangerous.

Ironically, Ali Khamenei was criticized by some within Iran’s leadership for allowing his religious convictions to restrain the country from pursuing more extreme retaliatory actions against the West, as well as from more aggressively advancing nuclear weapons development.

With his death, and with Ramadan having recently concluded at the time of writing, it is possible that more forceful counterattacks—shifting from a defensive to a more offensive posture—could follow, particularly as violence during this holy period is generally discouraged in Islamic practice.

Sources

• The Guardian – “US troops were told war on Iran was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’, watchdog alleges”

• Middle East Eye – “US troops were told Iran war ‘anointed by Jesus’ to bring on Armageddon, watchdog says”

• Esquire - The Iran War Is God’s Plan, Say U.S. Military Leaders (Who Believe Trump Was Anointed by Jesus)

• Military Leaders See Iran War as “God’s Divine Plan” — a Chilling Turn for Trump’s Fascism

• Pete Hegseth’s Christian rhetoric reignites scrutiny after the U.S. goes to war with Iran

• Hegseth Invokes Divine Purpose to Justify Military Might

• Additional reporting summarized from watchdog complaints cited by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation regarding more than 200 service member complaints about end-times rhetoric in briefings.

• How Nancy Reagan Became Forever Linked with Astrology

• George Bush: ‘God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq’

• Strauss–Howe generational theory

• The Fourth Turning by Neil Howe and William Strauss

Subscribe now

Share

Richard Wolff returns to Live on the Fly with Randy Credico for a continuation of their conversation on Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci’s early life in Sardinia and his political work in Italy provide context for his theory of cultural hegemony and the ideas developed in his Prison Notebooks. Culture, education, and media shape how people understand their social conditions and can limit the chances of revolutionary change. The themes echo in today’s United States, where rising inequality raises similar questions about social and political transformation.

On Dialogue Works, Richard Wolff and Michael Hudson discuss the United States–Israel attack on Iran, raising the question of whether the conflict could expand into a wider global war.

Subscribe now

Share

Richard Wolff joins Nicole Roussell on The Socialist Program to examine the economic and geopolitical fallout of a US war with Iran. Rising oil prices fuel inflation and falling living standards, while stretched military commitments expose the limits of US power. Iran’s long history, industrial base, and regional alliances make a quick victory unlikely, and the conflict unfolds amid growing international opposition.

In this in-depth conversation, with Jyotishman Mudiar on the geopolitical and economic consequences of the ongoing US–Israel conflict with Iran.

Share

As nearly every country in the world grapples with the escalating consequences of climate change, significant developments are emerging from the People’s Republic of China.

China’s Emissions Plateau — and Possible Turning Point

According to new analysis from Finland’s Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, China’s planet-warming emissions have continued to flatline — and in some sectors, decline — as cleaner forms of energy outpace coal and gas generation.

If current trends hold, China’s emissions from energy production could peak within the next two years. That would represent a major structural shift in global fossil fuel use and mark a critical milestone in the effort to slow atmospheric warming.

The study finds that emissions from China’s major emitting sectors have dropped over the past year, extending a slowdown that began in May 2024. After nearly two decades as the world’s largest annual emitter, even a plateau signals meaningful structural change.

Jackson Ewing, director of energy and climate policy at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute of Energy, Environment and Sustainability, underscored the importance of this trend:

“This is an important piece of work. Given that we’re looking at close to a two-year plateau and slight decline, it’s more likely than ever that this is here to stay and that the overall emissions trajectory for China is likely to be relatively flat for the next couple of years, at which point it will likely begin to decline and, in fact, decline quite precipitously.”

Clean Energy Outpacing Fossil Fuels

China has strategically invested in renewable energy technologies while acknowledging its responsibility in addressing the climate crisis. Its recent performance data shows the scale of that effort.

Key 2025 developments include:

• CO₂ emissions fell year-on-year in almost all major sectors:

  • Transport: down 3%

  • Power generation: down 1.5%

  • Building materials: down 7%

• The chemicals industry was the key exception, with emissions rising 12%.

• Solar power output increased by 43% year-on-year.

• Wind power rose by 14%.

• Nuclear generation grew by 8%.

• Coal generation fell by 1.9%.

Clean-power generation continues to grow faster than overall electricity demand — a decisive factor in pushing emissions downward.

China in Historical Context

China overtook the United States as the world’s largest annual greenhouse gas emitter in 2006. However, historically, China has emitted roughly 11% of global cumulative emissions from 1850 to 2021, compared with significantly higher historical totals from Western industrial economies.

On a per-capita basis, China’s emissions remain roughly half those of the United States.

That historical context matters when assessing responsibility — and when evaluating the importance of China’s present-day trajectory.

The Paris Agreement and Global Shortfalls

Of the 194 signatories to the 2015 Paris Agreement, only approximately 15 countries are currently on track to meet their pledged climate commitments. Most of those are smaller emitters. Major economies — including the United States, China, India, and the European Union — are not currently aligned with pathways consistent with limiting warming to 2°C, let alone the more ambitious 1.5°C goal.

In that global context, any structural shift in China’s emissions trajectory carries enormous weight. A plateau in the world’s largest annual emitter could alter the global emissions curve in ways incremental changes elsewhere cannot.

U.S. Policy Reversal Under Trump

The global shortfall in meeting Paris goals has been exacerbated by recent U.S. policy reversals. As during his first term, President Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement.

On February 12, 2026, Trump also revoked the “endangerment finding,” the 2009 Environmental Protection Agency determination that six key greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide — pose a threat to human health. That finding had formed the legal bedrock of federal climate regulation, triggering a requirement to regulate those emissions under the Clean Air Act.

In addition, the administration has taken steps to block or slow the development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, while expanding reliance on oil and coal production.

A Critical Moment

The broader global picture is stark: most nations remain off-track in meeting climate commitments. Yet structural changes in major emitters can dramatically alter the trajectory of global warming.

If China’s emissions truly peak within the next two years and enter sustained decline, it would represent one of the most consequential climate developments of the decade.

At a moment when some governments are retreating from climate responsibility, others appear to be accelerating structural transformation. The question now is whether this emerging shift will be fast enough — and whether other major economies will follow.

Sources

• Carbon Brief — Analysis: China’s CO₂ emissions have now been flat or falling for 21 months

• Inside Climate News — China greenhouse gas emissions offset by clean energy growth

• Carbon Brief — Interactive: The Paris Agreement on climate change

• Carbon Brief — Q&A: What does Trump’s repeal of the U.S. endangerment finding mean for climate action?

• Canary Media — How Trump dismantled a promising energy industry and what America lost

Share

Subscribe now

At approximately 2 a.m. Eastern Time on February 28, 2026, the United States, in conjunction with Israel, launched airstrikes against Iran. By sunrise, reports were circulating that an elementary school for girls had been bombed, killing more than 50 children. Reportedly, over fifty school-age girls were killed.

Let’s be clear: this is yet another U.S. war of choice. According to reports, Iran had just agreed to transfer all of its enriched uranium out of the country, which was a key demand from Trump and Israel. Similar to when Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors in to confirm that he had no “weapons of mass destruction,” America attacked Iraq and entered a bloody, years-long war—and of course, no weapons were discovered.

At this point in human history, the biggest threat to world peace is the United States of America and its colonial vassal, Israel.

The United States has no diplomatic credibility, and that will lead to an influence vacuum that will ultimately be filled by China, in my opinion. For decades, Washington has styled itself as a broker of peace—an indispensable nation stabilizing the world through strength and diplomacy. But credibility is built on consistency. If you attack a country after it has come to the table and agreed to terms, you are not projecting strength. You are projecting volatility.

Where is the opposition?

My birthday is tomorrow. I am over two and a half score years old, and in my lifetime I have never known “peacetime.” Not once have I witnessed a formal declaration of war voted on and approved by Congress. For the record, the last declaration of war was in 1942.

The GOP and Trump owns this, however the Democratic party has been largely silent, with much of its leadership owned by special interests loyal to Israel and the weapons industry. We have seen no emergency mobilization. No immediate effort to rein in executive war powers. No coordinated public pushback. In fact, during the State of the Union, when the president raised the possibility of an attack on Iran, some Democratic lawmakers clapped and cheered.

This is not “American Exceptionalism.” This is the end.

What we are witnessing from our “leaders” has the look of a drowning man flailing in the water—a dangerous attempt to project power through force while global trust in American leadership deteriorates. Professor Richard Wolff teaches us that empires in decline lash out in strange ways. As economic dominance weakens, as internal contradictions deepen, as legitimacy erodes at home, military aggression becomes a substitute for stability. It is a performance of strength meant to mask structural fragility.

We have a national healthcare crisis, a food insecurity crisis, a Social Security crisis, a homelessness crisis, a rent crisis, an employment crisis, an affordability crisis, a student debt crisis, an infrastructure crisis, and a climate crisis—yet we always find money to bomb children.

Your tax dollars—the 17 to 35 percent most of us pay—are not being spent to better our lives, but to benefit the billionaire/Epstein class and to commit war crimes, spreading death and destruction to the most vulnerable. My friend, a rising Afro-Soul artist named Michael O. has a song out entitled “Selfish Hearts,” which captures the sentiment of this cycle of exploitation. Indigenous traditions call it “wendigo”—a disease of insatiable consumption and moral decay that has captured the globe, led by those with the most power.

If there is any chance to stop further escalation, it will not come from quiet corridors of power. It will come from public pressure, the likes of which we have not yet seen.

Sources:

1. Aljazeera

2. NPR

3. The Hill

Subscribe now

Share

On November 24, 2025, in a major and hard-won victory, striking members of the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh returned to work at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette after more than three years on strike. It was one of the longest-running newspaper strikes in modern U.S. history — and the workers won.

The Strike

The strike began after the company unilaterally canceled existing health care benefits, a move the union argued was illegal. In response, the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Throughout the strike, the company continued publishing the paper by relying on replacement labor and bargaining units that were not on strike. Meanwhile, the Guild fought the employer both publicly and in the courts.

In 2024, the NLRB ruled that the company had violated federal labor law and ordered it to restore the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. The employer refused to comply, and the case moved through the federal courts.

On November 10, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the NLRB’s ruling, requiring the company to restore the unlawfully revoked benefits and bargaining terms.⁵ Only then did the workers return to work.

A Swift Retaliation

What appeared to be a decisive victory soon took a dramatic turn.

On January 7, 2026, all workers at the Post-Gazette were notified that the paper’s owners, Block Communications Inc., would cease publication on May 3, 2026. The closure would leave Pittsburgh without a print newspaper.

The announcement came the same day the company lost its appeal of the Third Circuit’s decision at the U.S. Supreme Court.

John Robinson Block, the paper’s publisher and co-owner, holds a 25 percent stake in Block Communications, the Post-Gazette’s parent company.

As Andrew Goldstein, president of the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh (TNG-CWA Local 38061), stated:

“Instead of simply following the law, the owners chose to punish local journalists and the city of Pittsburgh …”

Power and Precedent

The decision to shut down the Post-Gazette illustrates a broader dynamic in American labor relations. When employers are unable to defeat a union outright — whether through bargaining pressure, attrition, or legal maneuvering — they may exercise another form of power: closure.

The strike demonstrated that workers can endure, organize, and win through legal and collective struggle. But the shutdown underscores something else — the structural power owners retain in a system where capital ultimately controls whether an enterprise continues to exist.

The Guild won its strike fair and square.

The owners chose to close the paper.

The result is not only a labor dispute resolved through attrition, but a civic loss for Pittsburgh itself.

Sources:

1. The Real News Network

2. Columbia Journalism Review, coverage of the strike and NLRB rulings

3. PublicSource

4. NLRB decision (2024)

5. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, November 10, 2025

6. Poynter, “Why the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is shutting down.”

7. Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh statement, January 7, 2026.

Subscribe now

Share

On The Socialist Program, Richard Wolff discusses the Trump administration’s rollback of EPA regulations on greenhouse gases and pollutants. The Environmental Protection Agency’s role in limiting air and water contamination comes under pressure as protections are weakened. Industrial pollution has produced long term damage to public health and ecosystems across the United States. Capitalist production prioritizes profit over environmental sustainability, driving recurring ecological crises. Modern environmental regulations trace back to grassroots movements of the 1960s and 1970s that forced government action. Marxist theory links environmental destruction to the structure of capitalism itself and calls for systemic economic change rather than piecemeal reform.