The first air strikes by the U.S. and Israel, under the name Operation Epic Fury, began at 9:45 a.m. (Tehran time) on Saturday, February 28. In the first 24 hours of the campaign, the United States and Israel launched more than 1,400 munitions against 1,000 targets — the largest air campaign in the region since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The centerpiece of the first wave was a precision strike in the Pasteur Street area of Tehran, which killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and 49 senior Iranian leaders, including the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces and top commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

An Urgent Threat?

On Monday, March 2, Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the strikes were a response to an “urgent threat” — defining “urgent” not as an immediate physical attack at that moment, but as a strategic imbalance that was rapidly deteriorating.

According to Rubio, Iran was attempting to reach a “point of immunity.” At that point, Tehran would be producing ballistic missiles at a rate that the U.S. could not match in terms of supplying its interceptor missiles. Consequently, Iran would be able to proceed with its nuclear program without fear of military retribution.

Regional Escalation

In the 72 hours following the initial air strikes, escalation emerged quickly. On March 2, Kuwaiti air defenses accidentally hit three U.S. F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets flying in regional airspace with missiles. On the morning of Tuesday, March 3, drones believed to be from Iran struck the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, sparking fires and triggering a global security alert. CENTCOM has confirmed that six members of the American armed services have been killed by Iranian missiles since the conflict began on February 28.

The civilian cost is even worse. On the first morning, a missile struck the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school in Minab. According to the Red Crescent, up to 180 people were killed — most of them elementary school students. Videos from the scene showed rescuers removing bloodied textbooks and crayons from the rubble beneath a mural.

Interceptor Shortage and Cybersecurity Risks

While the government suggested the conflict could last for many weeks, critics say that sufficient munitions were not secured for a prolonged campaign. Senator Andy Kim warned that U.S. military bases in the Gulf could be besieged by large numbers of missiles unless Congress authorizes an emergency expansion of production.

At the same time, domestic cybersecurity is at risk. Due to sharp cuts in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), it is more difficult to protect the U.S. Experts warn that Iran could carry out damaging attacks on the American power grid and water systems.

The War Powers Resolution

Marco Rubio claims he notified the Gang of Eight on the night of the attacks. But under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president must submit a formal written report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing forces into hostilities.

That deadline passed on the morning of Monday, March 2, without any formal report from the White House. Consequently, the government is in direct conflict with the law. Senator Kim stated that this is “the clearest violation of our Constitution I have ever seen.”

The Choice Before Congress

The U.S. is involved in an extremely dangerous conflict. Oil prices have risen significantly with the Strait of Hormuz closed. There is a strong chance the war could spread throughout the entire region.

Congress must assert its authority by:

• Demanding a clear statement of objectives: What does “victory” look like in an Iran after Khamenei?
• Controlling funding: Prevent military involvement without legislative renewal.
• Holding a recorded vote: To put every member of the House and Senate on the public record regarding their position.

If Congress does not act now, it will cede vital constitutional power to the executive. This is a step toward an all-powerful presidency — the exact outcome the founders of the Constitution did their utmost to avoid.

Every so often, a major innovation creates a decisive turning point. In times like these, the world changes rapidly. Often, companies or countries focused on established technologies—the very ones that brought them extraordinary success in the first place—are left behind (in áit na leathphingine), while others are willing to embrace the new technology and push it forward aggressively. The consequences can be profound, reshaping markets, power structures, and even the world order.

This dynamic is discussed in Clayton Christensen’s landmark book, The Innovator’s Dilemma. Christensen showed that leaders fail not because of bad management, but due to a lack of strategic decision-making. They continue to invest in technologies that serve their existing customers and revenue streams, while casting aside new technologies as weak, dangerous, or unprofitable.

Initially, that assessment is often correct. New technologies are immature, expensive, and weaker than established ones. But over time, the balance shifts. The new technology improves rapidly, and the legacy technology reaches its physical limits. The profitability of the legacy system decreases just as the capability of the new technology increases. By the time established leaders realize what is happening, the gap is too large to fill. They are left with no choice but to be followers or, worse, to be rendered obsolete.

Identifying such a turn in advance is extremely difficult, however. Sometimes, the perceived disruptions are false alarms. A famous example is Betamax versus VHS in video recording. Betamax was widely considered technologically superior to VHS. Consequently, many analysts thought Betamax would win the battle. Instead, VHS gathered strength because that technology was cheaper, more flexible, and had stronger support from the industrial sector. Those who followed the seductive call of Betamax were wiped out.

Today, we are seeing major turning points in the fields of energy and artificial intelligence (AI), and in the combination of the two. For a long time, the United States of America (USA) held (and still holds) a dominant position in fossil fuels. The USA is currently the largest oil producer in the world, with massive reserves and an extensive economic ecosystem based on hydrocarbons. This position shaped the world order, from foreign policies to domestic infrastructure.

But that era is drawing to a close. The world's energy system is turning toward renewable energy rapidly. Solar energy is now cheaper than oil-generated power. It is cheaper to drive electric vehicles than petrol vehicles. But China is the primary driver of these changes. China has made massive investments in energy manufacturing, battery technology, and electric vehicles. It does not see these industries merely as commercial opportunities, but as strategic priorities.

The results are clear. Chinese companies now lead in solar panel production worldwide. They are ahead in battery manufacturing. And in the field of electric vehicles, China’s BYD has overtaken Tesla in terms of global market share. Instead of competing directly, the USA has adopted protectionist policies—for example, with high tariffs on Chinese vehicles. This might protect domestic manufacturers in the short term, but history shows that this is a poor long-term strategy.

The U.S. approach is even worse because fossil fuels are a central cause of climate change. Politics does not change physics. Although the debate continues, we can all see the climate change that is underway. Meanwhile, China continues to export renewable technologies and solidify its role as the primary provider of the energy systems of the future.

The danger for the USA is marginalization. As global adoption of renewable energy accelerates, countries will rely more on Chinese supply chains, standards, and expertise. If the USA delays too long, it will have to adopt these technologies from a place of weakness. In that case, not even Silicon Valley—the innovation engine of America and the world for so long—can be sure it will survive.

Recent events have shown that Chinese power is increasing rapidly. China's threat to restrict rare earth minerals, combined with its total dominance in clean energy research and development, forced the USA to retreat from its plans to impose 60% punitive tariffs on China. This strategic countermeasure demonstrated that Beijing’s control over intellectual property and the supply chains of the future was a more powerful weapon than Washington’s traditional economic sanctions.

A similar competition is taking place in the field of artificial intelligence. Here, the USA is still ahead in foundational models and software. But China is advancing rapidly. The combination of artificial intelligence and energy could also be decisive. Consider mobile AI systems like humanoid robots. They rely not only on software, but on hardware, manufacturing, and power systems as well (solar energy, batteries, etc.). China’s strength in these areas gives it a structural advantage. Reports that humanoid robots are already being used to patrol cities like Shenzhen show that this technology will have a major impact not only on commercial affairs, but on security and military affairs as well.

It is highly likely that we are on the edge of a new era. It is clear that the USA is heading in the wrong direction. The country’s regime threatens its allies in Canada and Europe and imposes tariffs on them at the same time as being very friendly with Putin's regime in Russia. A major political divide has also opened in the country, where democracy is under pressure from authoritarianism.

Because of these significant changes, Europe and Canada are strengthening their ties with China, India, and South America. This will change global trade and influence for decades to come, and the USA will be the worst affected. The danger is also that, without the leadership of the USA as the champion of democracy, the world order will slip toward authoritarian dominance. History shows that it is a long and violent path, full of oppression, instability, and a terrible human cost. A world shaped by authoritarian power is not a safe or predictable world.

We are late in the game, but it is never truly too late. The USA must rebuild alliances, make serious investments in the technology of the future, and restore trust in itself at home and abroad. We barely survived the nuclear age—through restraint, cooperation, and imperfect institutions. Artificial intelligence could be even more dangerous, especially in the hands of dictators who care only for their own benefit.

The turning point is near us now. How the people of the USA meet this challenge—that is the vital question for us all.

What is unfolding in Minneapolis is no longer only about illegal immigration. It is a stress test of American democracy, with consequences that reach far beyond a single city, a single state, or even a single country.

Two American citizens were killed following encounters with federal agents during protests that witnesses and video recordings show to have been peaceful. Neither had a criminal record. In both cases, senior federal officials applied the label “domestic terrorists” almost immediately, before any independent investigation had taken place and without presenting evidence to the public. In both cases as well, mobile phone footage tells a story that differs fundamentally from the official version.

As seen recently in the pressure exerted by the United States on Denmark over Greenland, American political stability is not a purely domestic matter. When democratic norms are weakened in Washington, the effects are felt near and far. Countries depend on the international system functioning properly and on major powers meeting their obligations. For countries such as Ireland, whose economic and security interests are closely tied to American stability, this erosion represents a practical and real risk.

Peaceful Protests

The streets of Minneapolis saw peaceful protests. The crowd chanted slogans. They criticised agents of the United States Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). They recorded events on their phones. These are all lawful activities protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Despite this, the video footage clearly shows federal agents responding with force. Pepper spray and tear gas were used. Batons were used. People were pushed to the ground, restrained with plastic ties, and taken into custody against their will, even though there was no evidence of physical attacks by the crowd.

The Killing of Alex Pretti

Federal officials initially claimed that Alex Pretti attacked federal agents while armed with a gun. The video evidence does not support this claim in any way.

Pretti was legally carrying a concealed firearm and had the required permits. He did not draw the weapon.

Pretti saw a woman in distress after an agent pushed her to the ground and sprayed her with pepper spray. He attempted to help her. Pretti himself was sprayed, forced to the ground by six or seven agents, struck by one agent, and had his firearm taken by another. Then, while lying defenceless on the ground, one agent fired shots at him, followed by another agent. He was hit ten times and died.

After the shooting, the scene was not secured in accordance with standard investigative procedures. The agents left without preserving the site or securing evidence.

Pretti was participating in a peaceful protest, activity protected under the First Amendment. He was lawfully armed under state law and under what he reasonably understood to be lawful under the Second Amendment. On that basis, the video footage raises serious questions about the necessity and proportionality of the lethal force used.

The Killing of Nicole Good

The death of Nicole Good followed a similar pattern. She was killed after agents attempted to remove her from her car as she tried to leave. Without any independent investigation, it was officially stated that she was a terrorist, before the facts were publicly examined.

Once again, video footage and eyewitness accounts reveal a clear gap between official statements and what is visible. As in Pretti’s case, federal authorities refused to allow an independent investigation by state agencies or the FBI, asserting that an internal review alone would suffice. As is widely understood, accountability cannot exist when those who use force investigate themselves.

Smartphones

Smartphones have now become one of the most important democratic tools of the modern era. They expose contradictions between official statements and what can be seen in video recordings. They allow the public to witness events for themselves and reach their own conclusions, without relying solely on official accounts.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has urged people to carry their phones at all times and to record interactions with federal agents. This is a lawful act. Such recordings create a permanent record that can later be examined by courts, legislators, journalists, and the public.

Authority Without Accountability

In both deaths, federal authorities refused to permit independent investigations. At the same time, Governor Walz and the Mayor of Minneapolis are under investigation after declining to cooperate with CBP and ICE, arguing that state authority and civil rights were being violated.

If these practices continue without challenge, they are likely to expand. Other cities could be affected. Federal agents could be deployed during election periods, placing pressure on voters under the pretext of security. The erosion of civil liberties rarely remains confined to one location.

Authoritarian regimes in Germany, the Soviet Union, and China did not begin with mass killings. They began by portraying dissenters as enemies and demanding obedience in the name of order.

Response

The American public is not powerless. Peaceful protests can be organised. Votes can be cast in elections. Phones can record events. Pressure can be applied to elected representatives, and accountability demanded.

The international community also has a role. Recent US attempts at geopolitical coercion, including pressure related to Greenland, showed that coordinated resistance can work. Unified responses from the European Union and Canada demonstrated what democratic solidarity looks like, without resorting to threats or escalation.

It is now clear that the international system is changing. In light of these developments, it is reasonable for smaller countries to reassess their dependencies and future strategies, while keeping a close watch on the defence of democratic norms.

At daybreak on January 3, 2026, in Caracas, Venezuela, the operation came to a rapid end. The helicopters lifted off. Nicolás Maduro was taken into custody in the United States (USA).

Various explanations emerged over the weekend.

First, on television, Marco Rubio argued that the morning raid was not a war, but an operation specifically aimed at executing an arrest warrant. In this version of the story, the US army merely provided protection to Department of Justice officials as they went about their work.

A few hours later, aboard Air Force One, President Donald Trump gave another explanation. He said that the United States would be "running" Venezuela for a while. American oil companies would move in. The infrastructure would be repaired. Elections would come later.

Rubio’s story and Trump’s story were contradicting each other.

In Caracas, Maduro’s inner circle remained in place. The acting President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, asked the US to collaborate together.

In 2024, it was widely believed that opposition candidate Edmundo González won a contentious election against the incumbent, Maduro. An exit poll published by the American firm Edison Research showed González leading Maduro 65% to 31%. However, Maduro claimed victory, and González was forced to seek exile in Spain.

González stood in the 2024 election because the opposition leader, María Corina Machado, had been banned from being a candidate. Machado earned international acclaim last year when she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Shortly after the US operation on Saturday, Machado called on González to "immediately assume his constitutional mandate and be recognized as commander-in-chief." In a statement, Machado said her movement would "restore order, free political prisoners, build an exceptional country and bring our children back home."

Ina phreasagallamh féin, áfach, chaith Trump drochmheas ar mhaíomh fhreasúra Veiniséala chun na cumhachta. Nuair a ceistíodh é go díreach faoi Machado, dúirt Trump le tuairisceoirí: “Ceapaim go mbeadh sé an-deacair di a bheith ina ceannaire. Níl an tacaíocht aici, níl meas uirthi laistigh den tír.”

Police operation or armed robbery?

That raises a question: What plan did the Trump administration have in the first place? The same rotten regime is still in place, and Trump is against putting the winners of the 2024 presidential election in charge of the country, as he ought to do. Therefore, it is hard to see a coordinated US government strategy, which is a cause for concern for us all.

Rubio’s "police operation" tried to keep the raid within known legal boundaries. If it was law enforcement, there is no need to consult the US Congress. International law could be bypassed. The action would be unusual but constrained.

Trump’s explanation blew that approach apart. Running another country to reopen its oil wells is not law enforcement; it is occupation by another name, even if troops do not remain on the ground. In the US government, silence reigned, with Democrats who demanded Congressional oversight overruled by Republicans kowtowing to the Trump regime.

For many years, the post-war system relied on the US as an exemplar regarding compliance with international rules. When the United States used force before, it was in cooperation with its allies and yielding to international agreements.

Operation Absolute Resolve went against those long-established norms. In Venezuela, paralysis is the immediate result. A leader removed from office. A regime left behind. An opposition in exile. An occupying power that insists it is not occupying anything.

Cause for concern in other countries

In other countries, analysis followed quickly after the American operations. An attempt was made to explain this sudden change, not only in terms of the impact on themselves, but on the international order that is now clearly being violated by the US.

In Havana, Cuban state media reported that numerous Cuban security personnel were killed during the raid, confirming what Washington had long claimed: that Cuba was supporting the protection of the Maduro regime.

In Bogotá, Colombia, officials watched the increase in US warships and aircraft with worry. Trump has openly threatened Colombian President Gustavo Petro, accusing him of exporting cocaine to the United States.

In Copenhagen, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen issued a statement urging the United States to "stop the threats" as Trump reiterated that he needs to acquire Greenland, for security reasons. Greenland, she said, was not for sale.

Trump had spoken about Greenland before. But after what he did in Venezuela, Denmark and Greenland realized that a serious threat was now involved. In Nuuk, the Prime Minister of Greenland wrote online that the rhetoric was "completely unacceptable." It was wrong, he wrote, to link Greenland with Venezuela.

In Brussels, European officials emphasized a distinction. Denmark was one of the founding members of NATO in 1949, along with 11 other countries, including the US. Venezuela is not part of that organization. Different rules apply to NATO, as it is an alliance. There would be major problems if the US took possession of a NATO member state, and there is a high chance NATO would not survive such a serious violation.

Canada was also keeping an eye on matters. Trump has already spoken carelessly about Canada as "the 51st state," a statement once accepted as an inconsequential dispute. After Caracas, however, the Canadian government must pay more serious attention to that threat.

Serious implications

This does not mean American troops will be on the ground in Greenland, Colombia, or Canada tomorrow. That is not how these changes work. But this saber-rattling is just the first step down that road. Therefore, weak countries under threat try to protect themselves by establishing new alliances with parties stronger than themselves. Allies re-examine their relationship with any country that violates international rules.

Competitors notice that they have a stronger argument for violating international rules too. With that new outlook, the invasion of Ukraine looks more acceptable. An invasion of Taiwan would be the same as an invasion of Venezuela. When international agreements regarding state sovereignty break down, everything is at risk. World affairs become much more uncertain and dangerous. The risks of war are raised in general, and that is not a good thing.

Big questions to answer

In Washington, there are big questions to answer. What is Operation Absolute Resolve? What are the milestones of the operation? Are other operations coming?

This confusion is part of the international environment. From Caracas to Havana, from Bogotá to Copenhagen, governments are getting used to not just American policy, but the inconsistency associated with multiple policies that are at odds with each other. That can only end badly. Sooner or later, the co-equal branch of the US government known as Congress must exercise its constitutional powers instead of sitting back and yielding all its power to the president and his friends.

The sooner the better.