Paul Krugman ends his latest post:
"The horrible but undeniable fact right now is that America has a terrorist president. And the whole world knows it. But we still have a chance to show the world that he is an aberration, that we are not a terrorist nation. And we can do that by standing up for the values that have always defined us."
Those values are expressed or interpreted in specific areas, by law. The cliche of the moment is war crimes which is a term of law. These are rules agreed to in various pacts of nations--hence "international law"--but because of official US agreement, they also constitute US law. That in turn qualifies them absolutely to be considered "high crimes" according to the Constitutional predicate for presidential impeachment and conviction.
But long before legal or political-legal decisions are made, the world will witness the United States as criminal--and beyond legal terms--as immoral. If these attacks result in widespread death, suffering, starvation and so on, they will be seen as crimes against humanity. This nation will be scorned and shunned, dishonored through whatever history is left, in a way the US has never experienced.
Beyond any technicalities of war crimes that Politico reports the Pentagon is currently painfully parsing (is it ok to destroy desalinations plants because Iranian soldiers drink water?), the intentions of any such presidential orders is crystal clear--in every statement made by Boss Chaos and Demented Crusader Hegseth. Bombing Iran back to the stone age (repeated by both, and again by the WH press secretary)--in other words, utterly destroying beyond repair all the basic infrastructure of a civilization-- goes way beyond military objectives. It could constitute the largest, most conspicuous criminal and immoral military action since Nixon's bombing in Southeast Asia, and as a crime against humanity possibly back even further to the Holocaust.
Judging from reporting on social media, people seem to be taking these possibilities more seriously than anyone in Washington or most of the news media. There is some assumption that Boss Chaos will once again pull back from the brink. But the tone of the rhetoric over the weekend is deeply troubling, beyond suggesting that (as Marjorie Taylor Green posted) the president "has gone insane." His later appearance on the White House lawn standing next to the Easter Bunny while lecturing assembled children on his warmongering certainly supports that conclusion--but then, so much already has, and for a long time.
What is new is the militaristic and rabid so-called Christian right rhetoric. The scattering of expletives in the Chaos post on Easter morning suggests Hegseth's influence--tough military guy kind of talk--but the tone also supports Hegseth's increasingly obvious far right Christian nationalism, which seems to have subverted the military itself in new appointments and promotions to replace the very many top military professionals he fired, especially women and men of color. While promising to bring "hell" to 90 million people (hell being a Christian construct), the Chaos post also insulted the entire Muslim religion and all its adherents everywhere with one sarcastic and contemptuous reference to their deity.
That kind of self-righteous religious fervor--especially when it is so basically twisted--is infectious, and does not lead to rational decisions. Which it why this moment is truly dangerous.
Could hell be delivered even by nuclear bombs? Garrett Graff asks the question and answers: “The simple fact that we can’t say ‘definitely no, absolutely not, for sure’ is an astounding commentary on how unhinged and dangerous his presidency has become and how far off the rails the war with Iran has gone... It sets the next 36 or so hours up as one of the weirdest and scariest moments in geopolitics of our lifetimes.”
The intention alone must be condemned in stronger terms. So far I've seen it given that weight only in Taylor Green's post. She called it Evil.
