“We don’t want regime change… but the regime has to change.” That line tells you almost everything about how Washington talks itself into bigger wars, and why the US Iran conflict keeps drifting from one stated goal to the next. We sit down with Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski to sort out what’s real, what’s posturing, and what the incentives look like behind the curtain as Trump alternates between strike threats and sudden stand downs.

We dig into the reported faction fight inside the White House between escalation minded voices and officials trying to slow the spiral, plus the hard constraint nobody can spin away: munitions, interceptors, and readiness. Karen explains why regime change is not a strategy, why “opening the Strait of Hormuz” is often used as a slogan instead of an operational objective, and how a lack of cultural and political understanding of Iran leads to reactive decisions that cost lives and credibility.

Then we widen the lens to the regional chessboard. If the US is weakened, overextended, and seen as unreliable, who gains freedom of action? We talk about Israel’s incentives, America’s intelligence dependence, and the disturbing report that CENTCOM sought “creative and unconventional” ideas to punish Iran, a sign of strategic confusion rather than serious planning. We also unpack the Pentagon leadership and career pipeline that can reward recklessness while punishing accountability.

If you care about US foreign policy, Middle East escalation, national security decision making, and what to watch next, this conversation will sharpen your radar. Subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave a review with your take: what’s the clearest off ramp from here?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Podcast (kyle): Play in new window | Download

A viral interview raises an uncomfortable question: what does it mean when a high-profile US political influencer sits down with a commander tied to the Azov movement and the “clean up the optics” answer is basically no? We take that clip seriously, not as clickbait, but as a window into how the Ukraine war is sold to the public, how propaganda works when facts are inconvenient, and why the neo-Nazi imagery controversy never actually went away.

From there, we pull on a bigger thread that keeps showing up in foreign policy: the push to connect wars into one narrative. We talk about the incentives for Ukraine to tie itself to an Iran-centered conflict, what Israel’s leadership may want, and how US priorities shift when munitions, media attention, and political will are finite. We also dig into the hard part that rarely gets discussed honestly: even if you think a war is provoked or justified, what is the endgame, and what happens to public opinion when strikes land inside Russia?

We then pivot to US politics and the pro-Israel lobby ecosystem, reacting to John Fetterman’s meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu and what that symbolism says about party discipline, image management, and who gets rewarded. After that, we highlight journalist Sam Husseini confronting Chuck Schumer, and why real accountability often only happens when someone is willing to get shoved out of the room for asking the question.

Finally, we unpack the “Morocco invaded Spain” claim by looking at Ceuta, asylum pathways, Abraham Accords-era leverage, spyware, and how migration routes tie back to destabilization across North Africa and the Sahel. If you care about Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, NATO, and the Israel lobby, this conversation connects the dots. Subscribe, share the show, and leave a review with the part you think the media is getting most wrong.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Podcast (kyle): Play in new window | Download

Dave DeCamp from Antiwar.com reported in a recent piece that the Pentagon admitted in its annual report to having committed two large-scale massacres against civilians in Yemen. The Pentagon acknowledged that hundreds of civilians, including children were killed and injured in a series of strikes.

A public and open admission of war crimes. Another in an endless series.

There has been an ongoing war against Yemen over the past decade, the United States and it’s coalition of Gulf nations have imposed embargoes and inflicted attacks on the populace. An act of punishment against the Houthi (Ansar Allah) leaderhip, who replaced the pro-Saudi regime. The Houthi also fight Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and their affiliates. As is often with the case of US foreign policy, Al Qaeda and the United States are on the same side in their war against the Houthi’s and the people of Yemen. The Saudis and UAE at times co-operate and co-ordinate with Al Qaeda in the region, thus aligning the US with the terror organisation.

Meanwhile, the people of Yemen continue to suffer. Before the genocide in Gaza, it was the crisis and mass starvation and attacks on the Yemeni civilian population which was of dire concern for humanitarian organisations. The coalitions attacks on Yemen, included school busses full of children and other targets which were very unlikely to have anything to do with the Houthi’s or insurgent fighters. The policy of killing innocent people is one which terror organisations and their supposed government enemies-allies have in common.

The US Congress and people now know that they murdered more innocent civilians in a foreign policy campaign which most citizens likely have no knowledge about, or interest in. And still, the US government wages it’s war against Yemen, along with other African nations such as Somalia. Lost beneath the coverage of the war against Iran, the Russian-Ukraine war and Israels invasion of Palestine and Lebanon, the US has bombed Somalia over sixty times this year already.

Attacking Somalia has been a constant action from both the Trump and Biden regimes. Just as the war on Yemen has taken on little notice among the US public, their governments war on Somalia goes on in an open manner where apathy and entitled exceptionalism assumes the right of the US military to attack anyone it wishes. Civilian casualties are a price the American public is willing to pay, so long as their government decides to continue the wars.

Perhaps it’s apathy. Maybe, it’s a form of privileged fatigue for the Westerner among the doom scrolls, occasionally seeing a dead baby. Those in the attacked nations, die and cry. They suffer. The exceptionalism is immense, that the US or any Western power, or nation of power may do as it pleases with imperial interest, naked aggression or even domestic intrusion has become an accepted reality. Peace and liberty are forgotten values. To mention war crimes or even express discomfort over such things, is abnormal. Not even radical. It has become anti-social to even care about the victims of imperial government.

The US military has admitted to more war crimes. Now what? Who will do anything about it? Those who made the decisions, the killers who pulled the triggers, will they face justice or will it be another case of praise and raises. Promotions and celebrations. More dead babies, prove the weapons work. After all, it’s their babies. And, so long as they continue to suffer, and die. Those who survive may want revenge and will fight on. Thus, ensuring the forever wars go on. That’s the exceptional attitude.

They, them being those in the frontiers beyond Western civility and the accepted comforts of modern life, are seen as barbarians or savages. They are an existential threat. The public understands this, surely this must be a rationalisation. To kill them over there, murder a child in the crib, is an assurance that they will not kill a Westerner in the streets of a civilised city. The understanding of blowback and repercussions or what makes a terrorist, an insurgent never seemingly understood. The savagery of the savage is always understood. While the mass starvation and mass murdering from the civilised is an understood necessity. It’s not merely collateral, it has become a constant. To kill innocent people for no real reasons, is simply foreign policy.

The current US bombing campaign, Operation Rough Riider, as named by Secretary for War, Pete Hegseth, is a response to the Yemeni Houthi’s blockading and attacking Israeli-linked shipping. The Yemeni blockade of Israel is in response to Israel violating the January 2025 Gaza ceasefire. It is an act of defiance against the genocide against the Palestinians.

Many will look at the civilian death count and shrug, it’s a small number compared to… we have become so accustom to constant wars and the death toll mostly inflicted on foreign strangers that the numbers are blurs. Each nation, and the lists of their dead a forgotten back drop, Those numbers reflect real human beings. The tears and pain experienced by those who survived, are very real. The irony is that while preformative empathy and a mental health fixation has become a profitable trend inside Western nations, their seems to be a lack of empathy for the victims of their government.

They die.

The wars go on.

They die.

War crimes no longer need to be hidden. The Wikileaks revelations fifteen years ago would have no impact now. Who remembers those victims or whatever it was about. The execution of an aid worker, blown to pieces as he transported water for desperate people in Kabul, the punctuation of the US retreat from Afghanistan. The murder of Iranian school girls, or even the shooting down of a civil airliner full of Iranian civilians, four decades ago. The destruction of the MSF hospital, or a little place called My Lai. The massacre at Wounded Knee ended the Wild Wild West and the American-Indian wars. Another war crime. Just a name to be known by any who care, and unknown by those who don’t. War crimes without justice. Just war and it’s bloody inevitability.

What does it say when war crimes can be hung out to dry, in plain sight, innocent blood splashing in the sun. Too few care. And, if they do. What can they do? The mob, loves their government and their government loves war.

So, the wars go on.

And so too, will the war crimes.

A former high school baseball player, with a successful businessman as a father and, a promising young man with a ‘bright future’ ahead of him avoided prison for the rape, strangulation, and violent assault of two teenage girls. He was facing up to 78 years in prison, and was instead granted a youthful offender status. Where he must attend community service and counselling.

Butler pleaded ‘no contest” to the charges. And the district attorney claimed that Butler had suffered more than his victims by being subjected to the process of trial and harm to his credibility as a young man. The case has again done the rounds on social media as an example of “himpathy”, and the consistent disconnect which exists between legal professionals, the government, some in media and by standers when it comes to rape.

Butler’s case is not isolated. As many feminists and rights activists have continued to push to the fore front, young men from wealthy and connected families can get away with rape. Rape is not seen as much of a crime, when compared to the economic potential that such young men may contribute to society, business and the State. If a male comes from an important family, with the perks of modern day aristocracy he may get away with certain things that an otherwise commoner may not.

It’s also key to understand that the definition and usage of the word, ‘rape’, has deteriorated into one that is over used and abused. To apply it to countless acts, and slights against an individual or group, can detract from the real impact it has on the victims of violent and threatening sexual assault. Especially when penetration and violence occurs. In this case and other such cases, the word stands to mean, violent and penetrative sex against the will of the victim.

“He could be my son,” has been a catchphrase that some use as they look at a young and handsome man, his face charming or familiar. He could after all be a relative. It’s frightening what sinister intentions and deeds lurk beneath those familiar eyes. Ted Bundy knew how to look helpless and charming, until his deadly thrusts showed otherwise and Ed Kemper could convey a pitiful gentle giant beneath his glasses, until his death blows took life. For the outsider, the sweet eyes and kind looks of such men are all that matters. Perception more than ever is driven by aesthetics.

The victims are props.

The victims are insignificant.

He could be my son!

“She could be my daughter,” or, she is someone’s daughter. Never seems to come to mind in a culture that, despite it’s demographic quotas and diversity diatribe meanders and jumbles the painful reality of sexual assault. Whether it is at times ascribed to a persons socio-economic conditions, their mental health or a litany of other conveniences which inflict further shame and pain on the victims. The State has imposed itself with violent authority as the supreme monopoly on justice. And, while it ensures it’s professionals are well paid. The victims of many violent crimes are left disarmed morally and in practice, unable to protect and defend themselves, deceived by the ‘process’ or ‘system’ which disregards humanity for careerist self interests and when all is said and done, the perpetrators remain protected.

The victims ever living in fear, unable to exact revenge or take justice. The community is without any ability to seek justice. The rapist guarded by the police state, whether this is through their protection as free men, or should they go to jail where they live inside a fortress, fed, and provided all the Utopian benefits of health care, security and bedding, on the outside they would have no such protections from their victims, their victims families or the community. Instead, they remain as protected creatures.

And should they “find god,” then what shame or moral injury may also release their mind from such anguish. After all, the devout do insist, “hate the sin and not the sinner,” as often the interest to convert and tend to the inner turmoil of violent perpetrators seem of more importance than helping console the pain of their victims. Forgiveness in such cases is for no God, certainly not the perpetrator or any accepting others, it’s for each and everyone of their victims to allow. And they have every right and means to deny forgiveness, regardless of theological deceit.

There is no born again for the shame and pain of the victim, regardless of the hallelujah of the rapists.

The imagery of Ramirez pulled free by a cop. The community he had been terrorising, close to ripping him to shreds. Instead, he was a meal ticket to legal and mental health professionals. Once inside prison, women-fans would come to fuck him, he was even able to marry one of them in there. The victims forgotten, again, as props in his legacy of terror.

Last month a prominent Melbourne businessman was found guilty of rape, his name on the other hand remains a secret. He is important to the establishment and has most likely shared lines of cocaine, fucked the same sex workers and shook the hands of those in the legal profession and government who now have the power over his justice. He may not be a promising young man, though the himpathy of power remains.

Rape and sexual assault is down played in the sense that it is for some treated a fetish, a prominent feature in the kink community and in the pages of smut-fiction and television shows. Mostly consumed by women. It’s a fantasy to be ravished. Only if the man is rich, handsome. Or, an Ogre or Minotaur, or a husky Scotsman or barbarian leader of tribesman. Depending on the genre. These are fictional and inside the role-play domain of rape fantasies, it’s a consensual agreement. A dilly-dally of the fetishisation of rape. It’s allowed and accepted because mostly women enjoy it. Though, that remains an unspoken fact.

As for men, often they look at the act from the penetration perspective. The taker of innocence. To them, “what’s the big deal” or, “she probably wanted it” becomes an apology. While, the over blown belief that a lot of women fabricate rape claims to ruin a celebrities career is cited. Yes, it happens. Not as often as many believe. It does happen and those cases where it occurs do the rounds more often than the many cases of rape where it goes unreported or the salacious details are less entertaining for the judging mob. Or, he gets away with it because of his status and potential importance.

It is rather simplistic to frame it as a man vs woman viewpoint, or that a patriarchy directly controls the State and power. It’s an internal individual viewpoint as to how rape is viewed, much as the same as domestic violence or even the most vile of violence, war itself. Within culture and individuals exist an inclination to down play violence or to dismiss the suffering of the victims. Those who have experienced rape don’t just heal like any physical injury does. The legacy remains inside, with nightmares and stabbing reminders of what a lack of power, or agency feels like. It is further imposed by social examples where we do not actually have as much ownership over our bodies. We are told to yield and succumb. Or, in the dark of night the mind itself haunts with memories of bitter pain, over and over again.

Perhaps this in itself is a rationale as to why some view rape as a non-factor or dismiss the tragic nature of it for the victim. The imagery of a handsome or sweet-charming young man is no different than how an abusive man can get away with his deeds, so long as he is rich, handsome. The Harvey Weinstein secret, or Jimmy Savile lineage of victims are more about wealth and power. Influence. Both men were important and promising for others. Their victims meaningless to those who should have and could have helped them. Instead, it was with layers of wilful ignorance and outright cover ups that such men could get away with what they did. For decades. Neither were conventionally handsome. In the depths of fiction, should a Weinstein have looked like a Christian Grey, then in fiction, at least his legacy may be now seen differently. Thus, the fetishisation of such abuse permeates.

Often in cinema and depictions of rape, even those when it is intentionally framed in the negative, the viewpoint is from that of the rapist. Visceral and harsh scenes intentionally meant to be seen as shocking or horrible, as raw violence such as in the film, Irreversible, the perspective is mostly done to show the takers act. A rapists angle. As a contrast in the film, Unbelievable, the perspective differs, It’s point of view is more akin to the victims. These media and cultural depictions can help frame how many witness, experience the act and how it lingers for the victim.

The religious infection of morality can also taint the justice outlook. Those who surrender it to a higher order, the State included, do so with a belief that their “should” be some justice. Whether karma or an all powerful deity, God or Government will rectify the wrong and steer the course. Inside religious cultures dominated by a male supremacy, rape can be handled with little regard for the victim, when the rapist is powerful. Or important. The theme lingers and continues the world over. While in some societies, a rapist may be stoned to death or punished by the victim and their family. This would not occur for the elites, the hierarchical important people. Saudi Arabia for example has a different set of justice for the ruling elites and those beneath them, no matter how vile the rape is. And, for the ruling elites the privilege of rape against women and child is a known unknown. Justice escapes such powerful and protected men because they are protected not just by their State but those allied with them.

For many people, not just females. Unfortunately, there is no justice. In the legal or spiritual sense. The more important and connected their abuser happens to be, the more the dynamic of power is revealed. The common person, those who adore hierarchies of power and the status of importance, at times enable and re-enforce this misery. So, while Butler may go on to have a successful career, his brush with the law soon to be forgotten, his legacy for his two victims likely will not. No prison that he could be protected in, is ever as much as that which stains the mind with misery for the victims of such men. In the end, for such promising young men, the world is their oyster. The women discarded in a past as mere moments for him, but lifetimes of pain for her. The shame is not for the victim to suffer, but everyone else who perpetuates it on and on.