FIRST OF A SERIES

SINCE Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s rise to power in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, removing him and his regime have always existed on the margins of American strategic thinking. However, it became a geopolitical obsession of one man: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The strategy of grudging equilibrium was the core doctrine of every American president since Jimmy Carter’s debacle in the aftermath the Iranian hostage crisis. Subsequent American presidents, from Bill Clinton onward, understood the risks of turning that doctrine into policy. The memory of the Iraq war, the fragility of the Persian Gulf, and the catastrophic consequences of regime-change adventurism imposed a kind of institutional restraint. Not until Donald Trump’s presidency when American and Israeli interests — with Netanyahu in the driver’s seat — were fused strategically.

Netanyahu found a marionette in Trump, whose focus on “total victory” overshadowed geopolitical stability. On Feb. 28, 2026, that restraint evaporated.

Trump advanced a dramatic war plan — Operation Epic Fury — launching 900 missiles, destroying command centers, eliminating the Iranian leadership, and erasing military infrastructure. The spectacle — designed for impact on television — projected strength, warming the cockles of a reality television star.

For three decades, US military leaders have advised against war with Iran, citing its challenging size and geography. Pentagon simulations consistently showed air campaigns alone would not lead to regime change or submission.

Defying military logic, ultimately, America was maneuvered into a war of choice, one whose political timing aligned far more neatly with Israeli electoral pressures than with American strategic necessity. The fireworks were spectacular; the consequences were deadly.

‘Total victory’ – an illusion

Echoing then-president George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech in the wake of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Trump quickly declared the operation “very complete.” In purely kinetic terms, the claim held some truth. Iran’s aging air force was destroyed within hours; missile depots were reduced to craters. But wars are not resolved by destroying machinery. Here’s the fundamental flaw of the “transactionalist” mindset: it confuses the destruction of hardware with conflict resolution.

By allowing Netanyahu to dictate both the target and timing, Washington stepped directly into a strategic trap that has been decades in the making. Trump appeared convinced he had delivered a decisive blow, perhaps even a “gift” to the Iranian people.

Instead, the attack accomplished something far more dangerous: it decapitated Iran’s old guard and cleared the path for a younger, more radical leadership cohort.

The new supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, emerged from the political vacuum not as a moderating technocrat, but as a hardened ideological figure shaped by the trauma of the Iran-Iraq War.

Members of his family were among those killed in the initial strikes.

In the Shia tradition of martyrdom, such deaths do not deter. They sanctify. Allahu Ahkbar! The idea that this leadership would now pursue a conciliatory “grand bargain” with Washington was always a fantasy.

Geography, not firepower

Pentagon was prepared for the war they wanted to fight.

They saw aging Iranian aircraft, creaking naval platforms, outdated radar networks. Their calculations suggested that Tehran could not survive two weeks of high-technology confrontation with the US.

They were probably correct. But Iran never intended to fight that war.

Iranian strategists understood their weakness in conventional combat. They understood the West’s structural vulnerability, its’ “Achilles’ heel”: the narrow maritime corridor measuring just 21 miles wide: the Strait of Hormuz, the central artery of global energy trade.

Invisible blockade

Within 72 hours of the initial missile barrage, the theoretical nightmare became reality. Hormuz closed, not through dramatic naval battles with the formidable US carrier strike groups. Instead, a handful of Iranian precise drone strikes near tanker routes changed the risk calculus overnight.

Then Lloyd’s of London and insurers who quietly govern maritime commerce made their move. Confronted with risks that could no longer be priced, they withdrew coverage. Without insurance, ships simply do not sail. In an instant, nearly 20 million barrels a day — one-fifth of the world’s seaborne crude — vanished from the market. Tehran grasped a brutal truth Washington ignored: you need not defeat a navy to paralyze the world, only make shipping uninsurable. The crisis arrived not with explosions, but with silence.

Economic earthquake

The numbers tell the story more clearly than any speech. On Feb. 27, the day before the first strikes, Brent crude and US gasoline on average cost $78 a barrel and $3.75 a gallon, respectively; shipping insurance was standard; and more than 20 million barrel a day pass through Hormuz. But as of March 7, Brent crude and US gasoline on average cost $119/barrel and $4.10/gallon, respectively; shipping insurance was suspended; and barrels of oil passing through Hormuz was effectively zero.

This isn’t just a statistic; it’s a silent tax on daily life. From pumps in Detroit and farms in Kansas to airline fuel and grocery chains, these costs ripple through the economy. Ultimately, the geopolitical chessboard lands on the kitchen table, as the American middle class foots the daily bill for Netanyahu’s long-pursued objectives.

Fracturing security order

The crisis did not stop at gas stations. Regional economies began to buckle. Iraq halted production in its southern oil fields as exports became impossible. Saudi and Emirati infrastructure again faced drone strikes.

Most revealing, however, was the reaction of America’s allies. When France announced an independent naval escort mission led by the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91), the message was unmistakable.

European governments no longer fully trusted the American security umbrella to keep maritime trade secure. For 75 years US naval supremacy guaranteed open sea lanes. That assumption now looks fragile. What tariffs could not fracture, strategic recklessness has begun to unravel.

Erosion of institutional discipline

Perhaps, the most troubling dimension of the crisis lies within the US itself. Its Constitution is explicit: the authority to declare war rests with Congress. Yet, the country now finds itself deep inside a regime-change conflict that was never formally authorized.

When a War Powers resolution in the House failed by 219 to 212, it revealed something deeper: institutional checks and balances have become increasingly decorative. The architecture of restraint, once central to American power, has weakened.

This matters more than any missile strike. America’s strength has never rested solely on military capacity, but on institutional discipline — the habit of calculating the day after before launching the day of. That discipline now appears to be eroding.

Quiet redefinition of power

Trump declares the mission complete, but reality remains unimpressed. With the Strait of Hormuz shuttered and oil hitting $120, it is clear that geopolitics is not a Trump casino where one can simply declare bankruptcy a victory and walk away. Escaping this trap requires acknowledging a strategic miscalculation — an intellectual maneuver rarely seen from Mar-a-Lago’s current occupant.

Instead, escalation looms. We see the familiar pattern: more strikes, naval surges, and the dangerous whisper of “boots on the ground.” This is the desperate remedy of leaders who realize, far too late, that the map is infinitely more complex than the slogan.

Meanwhile, the true damage occurs in the shadows. Insurers are retreating, trade routes are fraying, and allies are quietly designing security frameworks that bypass Washington entirely. History rarely turns on the initial explosion. It turns on the chilling silence that follows when markets shudder and the world realizes the man who pulled the lever never understood the machine.

To be continued on March 25, 2026

The Senate President crowed yesterday that the party he nominally coheads, PDP-Laban, has a “pleasant problem” — too many potential senatorial candidates. Koko Pimentel’s estimate is they have up to 20 possible choices for the 12-person slate for the 2019 senatorial race. But his list includes the five administration-affiliated senatorial incumbents up for reelection next year. This is a group that has made noises that, much as it prefers to remain in the administration camp, it is unhappy with the way PDP-Laban has been designating its local leaders and candidates, and therefore prefers to strike out on its own, perhaps in alliance with the other administration (regional) party, Hugpong ng Pagbabago, headed by the President’s daughter and current Davao City mayor, Sara Duterte.

Setting aside, then, the five-person “Force,” the administration-oriented but not PDP-friendly reelectionists (Nancy Binay, Sonny Angara, Cynthia Villar, Grace Poe, and JV Ejercito), what Koko’s crowing over is a mixed bag. Some of them have been floated by Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez (with whom Mayor Duterte clashed in recent months): six representatives (Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who is in her last term in the House of Representatives; Albee Benitez, Karlo Nograles, Rey Umali, Geraldine Roman, and Zajid Mangudadatu), three Cabinet members (Bong Go, Harry Roque, and Francis Tolentino), and two other officials (Mocha Uson and Ronald dela Rosa), which still only adds up to 11 possible candidates (who are the missing three?).

Of all of these, the “Force” reelectionists are only fair-weather allies of the present dispensation; their setting themselves apart is about much more than the mess PDP-Laban made in, say, San Juan where support for the Zamoras makes it extremely unattractive for JV Ejercito to consider being in the same slate. Their cohesion is about thinking ahead: Creating the nucleus for the main coalition to beat in the 2022 presidential election. The contingent of congressmen and congresswomen who could become candidates for the Senate, however, seems more a means to kick the Speaker’s rivals upstairs (at least in the case of Benitez and Arroyo) and pad the candidates’ list with token but sacrificial candidates, a similar situation to the executive officials being mentioned as possible candidates (of the executive officials, only Go seems viable, but making him run would deprive the President of the man who actually runs the executive department, and would be a clear signal that the administration is shifting to a post-term protection attitude instead of the more ambitious system-change mode it’s been on, so far).

Vice President Leni Robredo has been more circumspect, saying she’s not sure the Liberal Party can even muster a full slate. The party chair, Kiko Pangilinan, denied that a list circulating online (incumbent Bam Aquino, former senators Mar Roxas, Jun Magsaysay, TG Guingona, current and former representatives Jose Christopher Belmonte, Kaka Bag-ao, Edcel Lagman, Raul Daza, Gary Alejano and Erin Tañada, former governor Eddie Panlilio and Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña) had any basis in fact.

What both lists have in common is they could be surveys-on-the-cheap, trial balloons to get the public pulse. Until the 17th Congress reconvenes briefly from May 14 to June 1 for the tail end of its second regular session (only to adjourn sine die until the third regular session begins on July 23), it has nothing much to do. Except, that is, for the barangay elections in May, after a last-ditch effort by the House to postpone them yet again to October failed.

Names can be floated but the real signal will come in July, when the President mounts the rostrum and calls for the big push for a new constitution—or not. Connected to this would be whether the Supreme Court disposes of its own chief, which would spare the Senate—and thus, free up the legislative calendar—to consider Charter change instead of an impeachment trial. In the meantime, what congressmen do seem abuzz over is an unrefusable invitation to the Palace tomorrow — to mark Arroyo’s birthday. An event possibly pregnant with meaning.

Here’s a striking statement about love shared with me by an English college mentor. “Love knows no grammar. How it works can’t be measured by any parts or figures of speech. It goes beyond the literate and illiterate. The sad reality is that, even a fool who has got no philosophy is not spared of its harsh reality.” After almost three decades, I reminded him through a private message of his words. Here’s what he said. “Thank you, Jord. This statement about love is searing to the heart. And, yes, fools do fall for it too. But I thought that we as well speak of the beauty that it gives and not so much focus on the harsh realities. After all, our country has had enough of the negativities.” Thank you, dearest Sir Eugene.

In these decisive times when our nation trembles under the weight of corruption, inequality, and disillusionment, it is you―the youth, burning with idealism, courage, and an unyielding sense of right―who must stand at the forefront of CHANGE. The future of the Philippines hangs in the balance, calling not for silence or apathy, but for unity, conviction, and action. Let your dreams be the spark that ignites renewal; let your voices thunder against injustice; let your hands build the nation our forebears envisioned but never fulfilled. Now is the hour to awaken, to rise, and to lead the march toward a just and transformed Philippines.

Remember, the pages of our history resound with the triumphs of youth who dared to dream and act. From the Propagandists who wielded the pen against tyranny to the Katipuneros who took up arms for freedom, it was always the young who ignited revolutions and rebuilt nations. As Dr. Jose Rizal declared, “The youth is the hope of our motherland,” but that hope is not a gift to be passively claimed; it is a duty to be earned through courage and purpose.

Today’s generation must transform awareness into action―to confront corruption with integrity, to challenge inequality with empathy, and to counter apathy with participation. The time for mere commentary has passed. What the nation demands now is commitment, creativity, and collective resolve. When the youth stand united in conscience and conviction, no obstacle is insurmountable, no reform impossible. The power to redeem the nation’s promise lies not in the hands of the few, but in the awakened spirit of the many. Rise, therefore, as one generation with one objective―to forge a Philippines worthy of its people’s deepest hopes. And to those who were once the torchbearers of youth but have since laid down their fire―hear this call.

The nation does not forget its veterans of hope, those who once believed that change was possible but have since grown weary in the long twilight of disappointment. Thus far history grants no sanctuary to resignation. It demands of every generation the same unrelenting duty―to defend what is right, to confront what is wrong, and to labor still for what remains unfinished.

Now is the moment to rise again. Let not caution disguise itself as wisdom, nor comfort as peace. The courage that once stirred your youth still flickers within; rekindle it, and let it burn anew for the sake of those who follow. Your experience, tempered by time, must now join hands with the fervor of the young - to guide, to mentor, to strengthen.

Together, let the wisdom of the seasoned and the passion of the rising coalesce into a single, indomitable force for renewal. For the task of nation-building is not bound by age, but by conviction. The call of the motherland resounds to all who still believe that the story of the Filipino is not yet complete―and that redemption, though delayed, is still within our grasp if only we choose to act once more. And to those whose hands have long gripped the levers of power―hardened by privilege, dulled by entitlement―hear this with clarity: the era of self-preservation must yield to the dawn of selfless service.

The nation can no longer afford leaders who mistake possession for stewardship, nor governance for dominion. The time has come to relinquish the throne of complacency and make way for the custodians of vision, courage, and renewal.

To step aside is not to surrender, but to honor the sacred rhythm of nationhood―to allow new voices, new hearts, and new minds to breathe life into institutions that have grown stale from neglect. True leadership is an act of stewardship, and stewardship demands humility―to know when to lead, and when to pass the torch. Those who have ruled long enough must now become mentors, not masters; guides, not gatekeepers.

To the youth who will inherit this burden and blessing alike, the call is equally profound. Lead not with arrogance, but with awareness; not with impulse, but with integrity. Let optimism be your discipline―a conscious act of faith in the nation’s capacity to rise again. Lead with inclusivity that unites rather than divides, with courage that reforms rather than destroys, and with resilience that endures when hope seems frail.

For the measure of a new generation’s greatness lies not in its defiance alone, but in its wisdom to build where others have failed. Let your leadership become the living testament that the Philippines, once disillusioned, has learned at last to believe again―through you.

Now, the Filipino youth stand at a defining crossroad of history. The echoes of the past and the murmurs of the future converge upon this moment, and in your hands rests the fragile, however formidable promise of a nation reborn. You are the inheritors of unfinished dreams and the architects of what is yet to be. United in thought and deed, strengthened by the wisdom of history and the fire of conviction, you possess the power to shape a Philippines anchored in justice, animated by democracy, and sustained by the collective flourishing of its people.

The mantle of responsibility has passed to you. Do not falter beneath its weight; bear it with courage, for it is through your resolve that the nation will rise from the ruins of complacency. Let your unity transcend boundaries of region, class, and creed. Let your integrity redefine leadership, and your compassion restore faith in the Filipino spirit.

This is your hour. Let this narrative be not merely a call to awaken, but a solemn commitment―to the country that nurtures you, to the people who believe in you, and to the generations who will follow your example. Stand firm, for you are the heartbeat of a nation yearning to live with dignity once more. Speak right and shine!

Rise, Filipino youth, and let history remember that when your time came ―you stood unwavering, and the nation moved forward.