World News

https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/experts-agree-trump-is-heading-to  

https://theduran.com/experts-agree-trump-is-heading-to-reinstate-the-military-draft/

Experts agree Trump is heading to reinstate the military draft.

20 March 2026, posted by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

The people of Iran call America “the Great Satan” because they remember the years during 1953-1979 when the brutal Shah whom the U.S. CIA imposed upon them in a 1953 U.S. coup that threw out Iran’s democratically elected and progressive head-of-state Mohammed Mosaddegh and replaced his Government by instituting the Shah and his torture chambers, and they don’t want to go back to that. And they know that the U.S. Government is determined to force them back to that fascist dictatorship in some form or another. The wealthy Iranians who were happy with what America did to their country and many of whom still live there want it to be restored, but that is fewer than 5% of Iranians, and so there is no way that Trump and Netanyahu will succeed in the regime-change that those fascists — the U.S. and Israeli Governments — are determined to re-impose there.

Consequently, Trump-Netanyahu are now faced with the long war that they promise won’t be; and they cannot politically afford to be defeated by Iran; so, they seem set to deliver the long war against an Iran that will never surrender to them.

The following discussion by Russia’s RT television realistically describes the present situation in this war, and it is grim:

——

https://marksleboda.substack.com/p/crosstalk-bullhorns-hard-limits?utm_source=chatgpt.com

RT’s “Crosstalk Bullhorns” show, hosted by Peter Lavelle, on 17 March 2026

LAVELLE: Welcome to Crosstalk Bullhorns, where all things are considered. I'm Peter Lavelle. The U.S.-Israel war of aggression on Iran is showing the hard limits of the American empire. It's called imperial overreach. How does this impact the American war effort, and how is Iran responding? After all, Iran wins by not losing.

To discuss these issues and more, I'm joined by my guest, George Samueli in Budapest. He's a podcaster at The Gaggle, which can be found on YouTube and Locals. And here in Moscow, we cross to Mark Sloboda. He's an international relations and security analyst. All right, gentlemen, Crosstalk rules in effect.

That means you can jump anytime you want, and I always appreciate it. All right, let's kick it off with Mark here in Moscow. We're entering the third week of this war of choice, the American-Israeli tag team against Iran. At this point, Mark, who has a strategy? Do both sides, one side? What's your take?

SLOBODA: Well, it's not clear. The U.S. may have had what could loosely be described as a strategy, but that was unrealistic. They imagined riding a kind of neocon Viagra high after the pandemic. nearly bloodless regime change in Venezuela that was more a consequence of the CIA and the co-option of figures within the Venezuelan government that turned Maduro over to the United States. But I think Trump and key people around him huddling with Netanyahu imagined that the same thing could be done in Venezuela, that they could just take out. In red. Yeah, in Iran, take out a few top leadership people, and then the whole system would come crumbling down.

And we've heard from Witkoff that Trump is genuinely surprised that Iran just hasn't thrown up their hands and gotten down on their knees and kowtowed to Trump and surrendered, that why they resist him is genuinely concerned. That is Of course, not a strategy. It is, shall we say, more an imperial fantasy.

But that's what they started off with. Iran, however, has been preparing for this conflict, a long conflict, for years. And they obviously have a strategy. And that strategy, first and foremost, is a strategy of attrition, a long-range strike war of attrition. But that is directed now primarily not at Israel — as was in 2025 — but at the U.S.'s Gulf state vassals slash allies that host the U.S. military bases that are being used to attack Iran. And that is what, along with the closure of the Hormuz Strait, is crippling the global economy. So Iran is not only going after U.S. vassals, but making the global economy scream until Trump stops.

LAVELLE You know, George, maybe both of you will correct me on this, but this is the first time in my life in which the United States has decided to go to war with a country that can reasonably fight back, maybe asymmetrically, but it can, and it's showing that it can. This is probably the grossest miscalculation of all.

They think everything is going to be a cakewalk. It never is. Yeah. And this is the consequence of living in that fantasy, George.

SAMUELI: No, I think so, Peter, because in past wars, even when it was in Vietnam, and the Vietnamese did show that they could fight back, their fighting back was quite limited. They could fight back in Vietnam, may raise the costs for the United States, even though the United States was winning all the battles, but it was raising the costs politically at home. But this is the first time that anybody has been able to expand the war, make this a kind of an international conflict, and having a huge impact, as Mark said, on the global economy. That, I think, is the first time that that has happened. And clearly, Trump really doesn't have a plan. The truths that he sent out on Saturday, he sent out a whole bunch of these truths. On the one hand, he's saying Iran has been obliterated, 100% of its military has been destroyed. But on the other hand, we've got a problem with the Strait of Hormuz. We've got a whole bunch of countries that are ready to provide military escort for the tankers. But anyway, maybe they will. I hope they will. And so he really doesn't know what he's doing, because the more one examines how you're actually going to get these tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, the more problems that arise.

First of all, it's not all clear that any of the U.S. allies are actually going to join in this effort to provide escort for the tankers. Not one ally has said that we're going to do this. But also, even doing that, even providing a naval escort for just one tanker is a huge endeavor.

I mean, you need a number of them per tanker. And a lot of tankers are now stuck there in the Strait of Hong Kong. And worse, Because all the storage depots are full, because nothing is getting out, no one is actually producing any oil. So you're really now causing a really serious economic crisis.

LAVELLE: You know, Mark, in all of these conflicts on this program, I ask one of my favorite questions, and this is the first time I'll ask it in the context of this conflict. Who's got the clocks and who's got the time?

SLOBODA: The U.S., I mean, unquestionably has, by most measures, still the most powerful military. Sure, sure. There's two problems there. One is that military is spread throughout the world trying to play global hegemon and primacy. And we see the imperial overstretch. occurring with the U.S. military forces, right? We have to take carrier groups that have been at sea for a year and move them from the Caribbean back to the Middle East where they came from, all kinds of mechanical and systemic problems. We're having to pull THAAD and Patriot air defense systems from South Korea, you know, denuding defenses of South Korea, of the ally there to move to here. All kinds of overstretch problems. The U.S. military has a powerful military, but obviously now it can't be everywhere at once. There used to be an idea that the US should be able to fight two major conflicts and one minor conflict in the world.

Right now, we see the US not capable of at least completely overwhelming a regional power. which Iran is, a major regional power, but a regional power, and achieve the declared results of, I don't know, anything from unconditional surrender to regime change so far. Meanwhile, Iran is the drone pioneer. They are the ones who invented the Shahead-136 and transferred that technology to Russia, which evolved it into the Garan up to Evolution 5 that we have today that is a real game-changing weapons system in the conflict in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Iran is bringing all of those tricks back home.

All of this talk of Trump obliterating this and obliterating that — They've released video of the tunnels, giant underground, we're not talking bare earth, we're talking completely fortified and practically futuristic tunnels full of aerial drones, full of Shahids, full of unmanned boats, surface drones. This is how Iran is going to win this war, with drones and missiles, because Quantity, precision quantity, has a quality all of its own that is threatening to overwhelm what is really starting to look like a top-heavy and antiquated U.S. military that hasn't evolved itself as quickly as military technology has.

LAVELLE: You know, George, it's really quite interesting considering the Gulf countries have been clobbered all through this, but they haven't declared war on Iran. No one is joining in on this. The Europeans on their wobbly, waffly, almost opaque reaction to all this. It's hard to figure out what they really think. Kudos to the Spaniards on this one. But, I mean, if the Gulf countries are not, you know, and they're the ones on the receiving end of this, this tells you a lot about what just Mark said. There's been very little evolution in thinking on how geopolitics and military power are married or not married together.

SAMUELI: Yes, that's right. And it's very interesting what you say, because within about two or three days of the start of this military adventure, all the pundits on all the mainstream media were saying, OK, now Iran has really shot itself in the foot. all of the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, are now going to join the United States. That was a huge blunder on Tehran's part. Well, that was already almost two weeks ago. It hasn't happened. And this is a real, real blunder on the part of the United States, because remember, early on, during the Trump administration when he went to Riyadh and he delivered that major speech and he talked about the Gulf states and he said, well, this is it. We're putting behind us all of the religious and tribal conflicts. What the Middle East will be known for is AI, high-tech, investment. That's the future. And they all cheered and said, yeah, yeah, yeah, fantastic. Well, that's all gone. That's gone now because that’s, you know, who is going to invest in the in these states when there's as long as this war is going to continue and it doesn't look like it's going to continue. Who's going to invest in all these Gulf states? 

LAVELLE: Well, maybe there's there's probably one possibility, Mark, is that if these Gulf states align themselves with the red in the future. That might be a possibility. OK, but I mean, this is what's being bandied about. You know, they're going to there'll be an as a result of this will be an Arab NATO and all of this.

I don't think so. I think that this is a game changer for the region. What were brands, you know, with their slick skyscrapers and investments and playground for the rich? I think that's gone. Mark.

SLOBODA: Yeah, Trump said something else in that Arab trip that George was talking about. He also declared an end to the era of U.S. regime change. That all sounds kind of humorous now, of course. Okay, so I think that what this conflict is going to help do is fracture the existing conflict security and geopolitical order in the Middle East, but it's not going to lead to the immediate formation of anything to replace it. Obviously, the United States cannot provide the security that they've professed to provide to the Middle East over the last 20 or 30 years, particularly not when they start a conflict with the area's primary regional power that they can't finish. The Arab states are going to have problems, right? They're not going to align themselves with Iran. For one thing, they're going to be very nervous when this is all over if the Iranian government is intact in any form because, well, there will be debts still to be settled.

And then there is the Shia-Sunni divide, which – I mean, it's not a barrier wall or anything, but it still prevents problems. I think after this, the Gulf states are still going to be stuck with the United States to a degree. But much like Saudi Arabia has already and UAE have started to do, they're going to develop a more multi-vector, going to be looking for options, right? Options other than the United States. It's not going to be a drastic change. The U.S.

has gone from Italy, unfortunately. And that's what middle powers should do. That's traditionally the best policy to embrace. 

LAVELLE: All right, gentlemen, I'm going to jump in here. We're going to go to a short break. And after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on some real news. Stay with RT.

Welcome back to Crosstalk Bullhorns, where all things are considered. I'm Peter Lavelle. Let's remind you, we're talking about some real news. And, George, the real news is embedded in my next question here. However this is resolved, and it will be, I think it's going to be a lot longer. Well, certainly longer than the 72 hours originally planned.

It could go on for a very long time. As Mark pointed out at the start of the program, they've been preparing, Iran has been preparing for this for 20 years. And we've seen them experience the pain in the sanctions that have been against the country for a very long time now. So they know how to survive here. However it ends, one thing we all can take to the bank is that Iran will not accept going back to the status quo ante.

SAMUELI: No, that's exactly right. And it's Trump who's going around saying, oh, well, Iran is desperate for an end. Iran is ceasefire. But I've said no. I rejected it. So the moment Trump says that, you know he's lying. Because if there were really moves behind the scenes on the part of Iran to end it, he would be very quiet about it. He would allow this to work its way through. It's clear that it's Trump who wants to get off. And that was even obvious with that whole attack on Karg Island. First, we attacked Karg Island, we demolished Karg Island, but we only hit the military installations. We didn't hit any of the oil infrastructure. Well, why did he say we didn't hit the oil infrastructure? Remember, during the Iran-Iraq War of the 80s, Iraq repeatedly hit Karg Island and hit the oil infrastructure. United States didn't do that because they were already told by Iran, you do that. You hit the oil infrastructure. We're going to absolutely devastate the oil infrastructure throughout the Persian Gulf. Trump held back. And so it's clear Trump wants some way out of this, but he's not going to be able to get out of it because Israel isn't going to allow this because then it's just a complete defeat because the government will stay in Tehran, which is Israel's nightmare. And Iran remains intact, also something Israel doesn't want. So he's got that problem. But also, Iran isn't going to just say, OK, that's fine. Let's call it a day. We'll just have a ceasefire. Iran, in fact, has made clear we're not interested in the ceasefire because we don't want to go back to the status quo ante and then await another attack in six months, which is, of course, exactly what would be on the agenda. So Trump is in a real problem. He doesn't know how to get out of it without making concessions to Iran. Which would be a strategic defeat. 

LAVELLE: Exactly. Mark, what George just described is that Iran has the escalation dominance here.

SLOBODA: Yeah, I mean, up to a certain level, because, of course, the U.S. and Israel have nuclear weapons. So, I mean, there are limits to that escalation dominance. But simply with the ability to damage the Arab state's energy infrastructure and the global economy, remember, we're not just talking oil. We're talking oil. We're talking liquefied natural gas with Qatar. We're talking fertilizer. Right. 30 percent of the world's fertilizer, urea fertilizer moves through the Hormuz Strait. Right. And I mean, what is that? That leads to inflation all over the world. Right. Inflation of energy, inflation of food prices, inflation of this. And by the way, which country is the biggest provider of oil and gas and fertilizer that isn't in the region? Oh, yeah, it's Russia. So as the prices of all of these things climb. Iran has specified that they don't want to end this conflict, and there's understanding why. From their perspective, if the U.S. doesn’t succeed now, then they'll come back in eight years, eight months, or another year down the line, and first they'll try to politically and economically destabilize the country again to create — a moment of shock, and then they'll unleash military power again. We're already in a cycle of this. Iran wants to break that cycle. But it's not clear how. They can give the U.S. and Israel a really bloody nose, but they can't destroy them. Iran is starting to talk about things like war reparations, the removal of all sanctions, U.S. evacuating all military bases in the Middle East. None of these things are going to happen. I mean, we need to be realistic. I would love to see those things happen, as I'm sure many of the viewers out there would. But it's simply not in the power balance. It's not realistic. And eventually, Iran—we have to assume that these are maximalist demands, right? Mojtaba Khameini, the new supreme leader, the U.S. just killed his father, his wife, his daughter, his son-in-law, his grandchildren, injured him. We have war bro Pete Hegzeth gloating that we've disfigured the not-so-supreme leader. What is the maturity level of these? These people are megalomaniacs, right? This is the problem. Iran's war goals at this point, professed war goals, are unrealistic. If they stick to survival of the current government in Iran and giving the U.S. and Israel a bloody nose that it won't be easy for them to come back from, that is realistic. Meanwhile, Trump... There's some people within the Trump administration that obviously are looking for an exit ramp. Some of them were probably looking for one before it began. But Trump himself... This deranged megalomaniac is still talking about unconditional surrender, the opponents choosing the next leader of Iran. And the reason why he wants to preserve the oil facilities is also because he imagines that he's then going to control those oil facilities.

LAVELLE: Well, and all the more so, Mark, his son-in-law and his friend Whitkoff probably have investments in all of these things. Of course, that's the case. But but, George, nonetheless, I think Mark brings up a really good point, the maximalist approach. OK, well, that's you start out maximalist. That's where you start your deal making. But nonetheless. Iran is in the driver's seat about how long this is going to last and at least initially what the conditions for negotiations. So, I mean, it has many cards to play using the president's metaphor there. And that's something that I don't know. We don't even know if Trump is the decision maker here. But that is something that has to be taken into account because it's the United States and Israel. Well, maybe not necessarily Israel, but the United States and its allies want this to come to an end quickly. So Iran does have a number of cards to play.

SAMUELI: I think it does, and I think that's why Trump, despite all his megalomaniac, as Mark put it, proclamations about unconditional surrender and, you know, I'm not prepared to negotiate on anything, I don't think he's going to stick to that line. And particularly... When the generals around him, particularly the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Cain, are telling him, this isn't viable. There's limits on what we have, and we don't have the resources for a prolonged war. I think that will persuade Trump to... bring this to some kind of a conclusion, particularly as I think he's facing political disaster at home. So he would then have to eat humble pie and make concessions to Iran. So some of those demands that Mark outlined to Iran is making, I think are unrealizable. I mean, the U.S. isn't going to just wrap up its bases in the Gulf. The bases are going to stay. But some form of sanctions relief, I think I could see Trump making overtures in that way and then dressed it up. Oh, yeah, we've got a great deal and so on. It won't sell. I mean, everyone will say, hey, you've been beaten. But he's got no other choice because the United States cannot go on with this war when clearly… Iran is able to keep raising the costs. They're not going to open up the Strait of Hormuz. It's clear that that's an operation like that, which would require some form of a U.S. invasion of Iran, at least the Iranian coastline. That is a huge operation, very, very costly, and I don't think Trump wants to go there.

LAVELLE: Yeah, Gallipoli's not that far away. You know, Mark, Israel has a vote in all of this, and that is kind of the wild card here. I think we're all in agreement, and our viewers would agree, that Trump wants to get out. The Israelis won't let him out.

SLOBODA: Yeah, Netanyahu was perfectly frank. I've been working towards this for 40 years. This is the culmination of my life's work, getting the U.S. to fight Israel for me, and they're going to fight it tooth and nail, which is why there's no real political opposition to this conflict among the Democrats in the U.S., because they're not going to go against Israel on this, because that is the third rail of American politics. So Israel is going to do everything they can to keep Trump going. And I don't think that there's any sign. I mean, the U.S. is moving a marine expeditionary unit to the Middle East right now. I mean, it's crossing the ocean. And I spoke last week about Kargh Island, and that is how it would start. And he's cleared supposedly, supposedly, obliterated the Iranian military off of Kargh Island, but it doesn't do any real good unless they then occupy Kargh Island with, say, a marine expeditionary, and then, as George said,

start to clear the coast as well, because that's not enough. And that's how you mission creep into a giant ground war, and I don't see Trump looking for an exit ramp from this. And the time limit that George mentioned is also crucial, because above all, this is the hard geopolitical limit that has been now undeniably exposed. The Achilles heel of the U.S. is munitions, air defense interceptors, and now offensive standoff missiles as well. They do not produce enough of them to play this game of global hegemony and primacy. Far from it. And this not only limits their options in Iran, but it then also also limits their geopolitical options and power projection against Russia and China in the coming decade. It will take the U.S. years to rebuild their inventories of air defense interceptors, PAC-3 interceptors, which they really need entirely new systems, as well as standoff munitions like Tomahawks and JASIMs and everything else. They're at the bottom of the barrel now. They're hoping to get... to actually completely obliterate Iran's air defense so that then they can start using lower grade munitions that have to be fired from 40 miles like JDAMs, dumb bombs with glide kits. That they have an infinite amount of, effectively. But they have not obliterated Iran's air defense yet. Otherwise, they would already be doing that. And that's what Iran has to do. They have to keep the U.S. at a distance outside of their airspace. If they can do that, the U.S. is going to run out of options other than, I don't know, declaring a draft and sending a million — Oh, yeah, here we go. Yeah, right. A million American children — 

LAVELLE: George, real quickly here, we're going to be talking about this for a long time. What do you think?

SAMUELI: I think we will be. And that's a very interesting option. They haven't taken the draft off the table. And if this continues, then, yeah, they're going to have to find, you know, millions of men from somewhere. That's the moment the war becomes possible. Really, really unpopular in the United States. Well, this is the first war in our lifetime that started off unpopular. 

LAVELLE: All right, gentlemen, that's all the time we have. I want to thank my guests in Budapest and here in Moscow. And, of course, I want to thank our viewers for watching us here at RTC. See you next time.

——

MY COMMENT: I agree with all three of them — that Trump is losing but will refuse to lose this war — or else Trump and Netanyahu will escalate it to the next-higher level, which is nuclear invasion, WW3 (in which case everyone will lose it). 

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.