Letter to the Editor |
Dark Fun: Seinfeld joke misses moral mark


Cruelty was made to feel like camaraderie, and Palestinian suffering was made to seem like a fitting subject for laughter says one Sentinel reader.


Dear Editor,

At comedian Jerry Seinfeld's recent show in Chicago, an audience member shouted about Gaza, "Twenty-two thousand Palestinians who are children now are killed with our taxpayer money, and you're making jokes?!"

The comedian then began dancing on stage and mockingly declared, “I am a racist. It’s a genocide. I’m into it,” before saying, “I’m gonna find out how much your ticket was, and I’m sending it to Israel.”

Seinfeld, an outspoken supporter of Israel, previously stated, “I don’t care about Palestine,” and that "It doesn't exist."

In their journal article, "Genocidal Enjoyment: On the Weaponization of Joyful Cruelty and 'Dark Fun' during Israel’s Genocide in Gaza," sociologists Raúl Pérez and Charles Thorpe define genocidal enjoyment as “the weaponized use of joyful cruelty in the service of state violence” against a dehumanized community.

One example cited is the propaganda channel, “72 Virgins-Uncensored,” which was operated on the social media platform Telegram by members of the Israeli Defense Forces' Influencing Department. Its target audience was Israeli citizens, and the channel showed videos and posted photos celebrating and mocking the death and abuse of Palestinians.

According to the authors, genocidal enjoyment bonds soldiers and supporters through shared pleasure, reinforcing moral hierarchies and portraying the targets of state violence as moral outsiders.

Seinfeld’s actions demonstrated genocidal enjoyment. Cruelty was made to feel like camaraderie, and Palestinian suffering was made to seem like a fitting subject for laughter.


Terry Hansen
Grafton, WI


Terry Hansen is a retired educator from Grafton, WI, who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.




What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.


Viewpoint |
All profit, no principles


Trump offers Russia a diesel lifeline as reports link Moscow to Iranian targeting of American forces.


by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor


Americans are being asked to pay for fuel from a government reportedly helping Iran locate American forces and endangering American lives.

President Trump announced more than 300,000 metric tons of Russian diesel for markets after temporarily lifting sanctions on Russian fuel. He calls it relief for Americans facing high prices. It is a gift to Moscow wrapped in American hardship.

The relief will be small. That cargo equals roughly 2.2 million barrels, about half a day of U.S. diesel demand. For Russia, the transaction brings fresh revenue, restored access to markets and a precedent for escaping sanctions.

The law may not permit it, either. Republican Sen. Tillis says the arrangement may be illegal, and a bipartisan Senate statement says the administration neither consulted Congress nor provided the explanation required by statute.

Congress should demand the legal justification, commercial terms and expected benefit to Moscow. Who collects the proceeds? What enforceable concession has Putin made?

In March, The Washington Post reported that Moscow was supplying Iran with targeting information, including the locations of American warships and aircraft. Reuters later reported a Ukrainian intelligence assessment of Russian satellite surveys of Middle Eastern military sites, and two sources said imagery had been shared with Iran.

None of this proves Moscow directed individual attacks. All of it demands an answer. Why reward a government reportedly helping an adversary find American forces?

Meanwhile, Trump has pressed Ukraine to stop striking the Russian refineries that sustain Moscow's war. Reuters, citing a person familiar with the situation, reported that Washington threatened to cut intelligence sharing and weapons procurement if Kyiv refused.

American intelligence becomes leverage against the victim while Russian intelligence reportedly aids those who threaten Americans.

Protect the refineries, restore the revenues, pressure the victim. That is a remarkable definition of American strength.

Fuel is how Russia pays for this war. Sanctions on its energy revenue were meant to shrink the budget behind the missiles and drones aimed at Ukrainian cities. Waiving them tells allies who bore the cost of enforcement that American resolve was seasonal, and tells Moscow that pressure can be outwaited.

Trump has since announced an energy ceasefire. Zelenskyy said Ukraine would hold its fire if Russia reciprocated, but the Associated Press reported continued Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy sites. A declaration is not an agreement, and an agreement is not a concession delivered.

The familiar defense is that Trump is negotiating. Then show the exchange. A reciprocal halt to energy attacks could protect civilians and deserves support. Unilateral restraint on Ukraine, coupled with fresh Russian sales, deserves rejection. Negotiation requires something from the other side. Otherwise, “deal” becomes a flattering word for surrendering leverage.

Some Republicans understand the danger. Sens. Collins, Murkowski,Tillis and Curtis joined Democrats in demanding that Trump reverse course.

Sen. Barrasso defended the arrangement as relief for consumers, farmers, ranchers and truckers. Those Americans deserve affordable fuel. They also deserve an honest accounting of the security cost.

This is not an isolated concession. Trump's deference to Putin has repeatedly produced ceremony, promises and headlines without the corresponding results.

In August 2025, Trump welcomed Putin to Alaska with a red carpet and military flyover despite an International Criminal Court arrest warrant over the alleged unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. Trump sought a ceasefire and left without one. Putin received the ceremony; Ukraine received no halt to the fighting.

The questions reach Trump's family, too. ProPublica reported that Russian oligarch Kremlev, who has close ties to Putin, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars toward Trump Jr.'s Bahamas wedding celebrations, including a private-island rental. The couple acknowledged the gift, and Kremlev later said Trump Jr. repaid him.

A gift does not prove that policy was bought. But the circumstances demand documentation: Why was it offered, and what records substantiate the repayment?

Congress has the power to obtain answers. It can subpoena the transaction's terms, hold hearings and force a vote. Republicans need no theory, only the willingness to judge a Russian lifeline as harshly as they would if a Democratic president had authorized it.

Cheap diesel cannot justify rewarding a government reportedly helping Iran locate American sailors and pilots. Americans deserve relief at the pump, but not at the price of their security.

When Putin profits and American forces face the risk, the question is not whether the deal is cheap. It is who is paying the real price.


About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.





What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.


Viewpoint |
Socialism or dividend? It all depends on who is saying it


The $5,000 promise - Washington still has to pay the bill. It isn't the free lunch they want you to believe it is.


by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor


A $5,000 check from Washington is either socialism or a dividend, depending on which party is signing it.

On Sept. 1, the House passed a Republican resolution condemning “socialism in all its forms” by a vote of 220-192. Days later, at the Republican National Committee's midterm convention in Dallas, President Trump warned that Democratic socialism would lead to communism, then promised every adult American a $5,000 “dividend” if Republicans hold Congress.

When Democrats propose sending government money to Americans, Republicans call it socialism.

When Republicans propose the same thing, they call it a dividend.

That contradiction points to a more useful question than either label: how does Washington keep promising new money when the national debt has already passed $40 trillion?

Trump's proposal would cost more than $1.2 trillion if paid to every adult citizen. He has offered no detailed financing plan, pointing instead to economic strength and tariff revenue, while Commerce Secretary Lutnick has floated other sources. Whatever it's called, a $5,000 payment funded by the federal government is federal spending.

The timing makes the contradiction harder to ignore. The national debt sits at $40 trillion, annual deficits already run in the trillions, and Washington keeps finding new ways to add to both. The White House ballroom renovation has climbed to an estimated $927 million, much of it taxpayer-funded, according to The Washington Post. A proposed $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” would compensate people, including convicted Jan. 6 defendants, who claim they were unfairly targeted; a federal court blocked it in July, and the DOJ is appealing. And, Construction is set to begin on a 250-foot Independence Arch.

A $40 trillion debt is not an abstraction. It is a mortgage on our children's future, one likely to leave them with a lower standard of living than their parents had.

A prolonged war with Iran would only add to that risk. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost taxpayers several trillion dollars over two decades, according to a Brown University study; a drawn-out conflict with Iran could add substantially to a debt already out of control.

Each of these commitments can be defended on its own terms. The real question is what they add up to on top of the $40 trillion already owed.

That is where the socialism and communism argument collapses. Republicans call Democratic proposals for health care, child care and family benefits socialism, yet Republican administrations use the same government power for their own priorities: a 9.9 percent stake in Intel, a “golden share” in U.S. Steel, tariff-funded aid to farmers, and now a $5,000 check to every household. Each moves money from the public treasury to a recipient chosen by whichever party controls it at the time, which is the same transfer Republicans call socialism when Democrats propose universal health care.

None of this makes America socialist or communist. Those are specific terms with long, consequential histories, not political weapons to fire whenever an opponent's policy needs discrediting. Calling something socialism or communism doesn't make it so; it substitutes an accusation for an argument. If government intervention is acceptable when Republicans choose the industry or the recipient, the debate was never about ideology. It was about whether a policy is necessary, affordable and worth the cost.

Affordability should be the easiest question to answer. If tariffs are paying for the check, why should Americans face higher prices so Washington can hand some of the money back? If borrowing is paying for it, why add another trillion dollars to the $40 trillion already owed? If a settlement fund is paying for it, why should taxpayers cover claims from people convicted of attacking Congress? If deficits already run in the trillions every year, why does one more trillion get called a dividend instead of debt?

Voters shouldn't have to choose between socialism and communism. Those aren't policy arguments; they're campaign weapons. They should be able to ask something simpler: what will it cost, who will pay for it, and what will America get in return?

The $5,000 promise makes those questions impossible to avoid. Republicans can call it a dividend, call Democratic programs socialism, and call their opponents communists. Washington still has to pay the bill.

With $40 trillion already on the national credit card, the question isn't whether Washington calls the next check socialism or a dividend. It's who will finally stop signing for money America doesn't have.


About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.




TAGS: Trump promises money if Republicans win, It is only socialism when the Left does it, War in Iran costs Americans trillions, upcoming election promise, Congress still must approve the distribution, Another empty Trump promise, political commentary by Van Abbott


What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.


Viewpoint |
When faith becomes ammunition: The danger of sanctifying war


Religious faith can guide people through the horrors of war, but government power must remain accountable to law, evidence and constitutional limits.


by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor


First the boat was destroyed, then two survivors were killed in a second strike, and now the men directing America’s wars want us to see such violence through the eyes of God.

On Sept. 2, 2025, a U.S. strike destroyed a suspected drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean. Two men survived and clung to the wreckage. A second strike killed them.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth later defended the operation, invoking the “fog of war” and saying the admiral who ordered the second strike had the authority to do so.

The incident was not isolated.

Trump’s maritime campaign has killed more than 223 people and destroyed 67 vessels as of 08/30/2026. The administration says those targeted are drug traffickers or narco-terrorists. But Americans have received too little evidence about who was killed.


The problem begins when faith becomes ammunition.

More than 223 dead. More than 67 boats destroyed. Still too few answers.

Then came Hegseth’s prayer.

At a Pentagon Christian worship service, the defense secretary prayed for “overwhelming violence” against people he said “deserve no mercy” and asked that “every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation.”

Trump identifies the targets. Hegseth sanctifies the violence.

Trump has supplied his own religious vocabulary. He called the rescue of a downed American airman in Iran an “Easter Miracle.” In threatening Iran, he warned that “all Hell” would rain down and concluded, “Glory be to GOD.”

There is nothing wrong with a president praying for soldiers. There is nothing wrong with a defense secretary expressing faith. There is nothing wrong with thanking God when an American service member comes home alive.

The problem begins when faith becomes ammunition.

When military violence is presented as divine favor, when enemies become people who “deserve no mercy,” when destruction is wrapped in righteousness, religious language no longer merely accompanies government power. It begins to sanctify it.


...because war already gives human beings extraordinary power over life and death.

That should alarm Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and every American who believes the Constitution, not theology, governs the use of military force.

And the danger may not stop at the Pentagon.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has reported receiving more than 200 complaints concerning religious comments by military commanders about the Iran war. One complaint alleged that a commander told troops the conflict was part of God’s plan, that Trump had been “anointed by Jesus.”

Those allegations remain allegations. They should be independently investigated, not casually repeated as fact.

But the allegation itself illustrates the danger.

A soldier’s oath is to the Constitution. An officer’s duty is to lawful authority. A commander may pray with troops, but personal theology cannot become a military command structure.

The American military exists to defend the nation, not to stage-manage prophecy.

That distinction matters because war already gives human beings extraordinary power over life and death. A president’s authority to use military force does not include the authority to redefine killing as righteousness.

Faith should strengthen those limits, not erase them.

It should remind those who command force to distinguish combatants from civilians, use no more force than necessary, protect the wounded, accept surrender and seek peace when war has accomplished its legitimate purpose.

Mercy does not mean surrendering to an enemy. It means recognizing that even war has rules.

The Good Samaritan did not first ask whether the wounded man belonged to his tribe, shared his beliefs or deserved help. He saw a human being in the road and stopped.

The Good Samaritan ran toward the wounded.

A double tap makes the wounded the next target.

Iran’s regime is brutal. Drug cartels are brutal. Neither fact gives the United States permission to abandon law, evidence or restraint. America can destroy legitimate military targets without declaring every enemy beyond mercy. It can fight terrorism without turning war into theology. It can defend itself without claiming God as a member of the chain of command.

Congress should demand the evidence from the boat campaign: the strike video, the orders, the legal memoranda and the complete casualty record.

Congress should also investigate reports of religious coercion or apocalyptic messaging inside military commands and make clear that American service members must never be pressured to confuse obedience to lawful orders with obedience to a commander’s private theology.

The Constitution gives government enormous power to wage war. It does not give government the power to declare its violence holy.

The Good Samaritan ran toward the wounded. America should remember that before the next target is declared righteous to kill.


About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.




TAGS: religious language and military violence in America, Pentagon faith and constitutional limits on war, Pete Hegseth religious comments and military force, Good Samaritan lesson for American military policy, Constitutional limits on religious justification for war


What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.


Letter: Destruction of Gaza's life-sustaining systems must be confronted


Sentinel logo
A letter to the editor examines the United Nations Genocide Convention and arguments made by South Africa, Physicians for Human Rights Israel and architect Eyal Weizman concerning the destruction of homes, hospitals, water systems and other life-sustaining infrastructure in Gaza.


Dear Editor,

The United Nations Genocide Convention includes "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" among the acts that can constitute genocide.

South Africa made this specific prohibition central to its case against Israel before the International Court of Justice. While a final ruling on the merits may take years, the ICJ has already ordered Israel to “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts forbidden under the Convention.

Physicians for Human Rights Israel issued a July 2025 report titled Destruction of Conditions of Life: A Health Analysis of the Gaza Genocide. It concludes:

"Though Israel has cited military necessity...the scale, pattern, and nature of the operations, as well as accompanying statements, indicate a broader policy aimed at destroying Palestinian society in Gaza and making the enclave uninhabitable."

The report argues that the targeted destruction of hospitals, obstruction of medical aid, and the killing and detention of over 1,800 health care workers reveal a "deliberate and systematic dismantling of Gaza's health and life-sustaining systems."

Israeli architect Eyal Weizman makes a related argument in his 2026 book, Ungrounding: The Architecture of Genocide. Weizman documents how Israel's demolition of Gaza has made the territory unrecognizable and unlivable.

Weizman describes Gaza’s systematic destruction: “[M]ost of the Gaza Strip—cities, refugee camps, schools, universities, mosques, the health infrastructure, agriculture, wells and the soil itself—has been destroyed and made toxic by bombs, artillery, tank shells and sappers [combat engineers].”

He adds that “the most systematic destruction was caused by D9 bulldozers made by the US company Caterpillar.” An Israeli bulldozer operator in Gaza says that if Palestinians return to where their homes stood, “All they will find is sand.”

As Weizman puts it, "Ungrounding...aims to remove a society from its place and erase all traces to its previous existence."

When hospitals, homes, water systems, farmland, and even the soil are systematically destroyed, this is not collateral damage. It is the deliberate creation of conditions for the impossibility of life and must be confronted for what it is: genocide.


Terry Hansen
Grafton, WI

Terry Hansen is a retired educator from Grafton, WI, who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.



TAGS: United Nations Genocide Convention Gaza conditions of life, International Court of Justice Israel Gaza genocide case, Physicians for Human Rights Israel Gaza report, Eyal Weizman Ungrounding Architecture of Genocide, destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure in Gaza

Viewpoint |
The world keeps calling it a ceasefire while bombs still fall on Gaza


This opinion piece questions the legitimacy of calling the situation in Gaza a ceasefire while airstrikes and civilian deaths continue. The article argues that language surrounding the conflict has obscured the reality faced by families living under ongoing bombardment.


by Yumna Zahid Ali
Guest Commentator


A ceasefire means the firing ceases.

That is not a sponsored conclusion or a political position. That is, in American English, British English, Australian English, Canadian English, Irish English, Nigerian English, and every other English spoken in every other corner of this earth, the literal definition of the word. So someone needs to explain, clearly and without the usual diplomatic fog, how Gaza is still being bombed while this so-called truce is in place.

oursentinel.com viewpoint
Ceasefire? More like cease-for-an-hour. Because that is all it has ever amounted to: a pause in the coverage, not a pause in the coffins.

Say that again. A pause in the coverage, not a pause in the coffins.

And as that so-called pause is being celebrated, hospitals are being bombed while negotiators shake hands in air-conditioned rooms. Entire families are being wiped off the civil registry while spokespeople read prepared statements about their commitment to peace. Neighborhoods that had names, that had bakeries and schools and people who knew each other, are being reduced to grey powder while the international community expresses its deep and apparently bottomless concern. That concern has never once stopped a single airstrike. Not one. And yet they keep offering it, as if concern is a substitute for action, as if words spoken into a microphone have ever pulled anyone out of the concrete.


When you call a bombing campaign a ceasefire, you are not just being inaccurate. You are providing cover.

The dead in Gaza do not care about your press releases. They do not care about your ties or your flags or your solemn faces at the podium. They weep over one outcome and one outcome only: whether the bombs stop. THE BOMBS DID NOT STOP. So everything else, the agreements, the statements, the carefully worded communiqués, the handshakes in front of flags, all of it was a hoax. A spotlight-ready, well-funded, internationally-endorsed hoax. And you are not supposed to applaud a hoax that ends with children dying. You are supposed to ask why it keeps getting cheered on.

Honestly, this is not a ceasefire, and you need to stop letting them call it that. Because the moment you accept their language, you have already accepted their version of reality, and their version of reality is engineered precisely to make you feel like something is being done when nothing is being done. Words matter. When you call a bombing campaign a ceasefire, you are not just being inaccurate. You are providing cover. You are handing the people responsible a shield made out of language, and they will use it, and they have been using it, and people have been dying underneath it.

Look at the logic and follow it all the way to the end. If a ceasefire agreement exists and strikes are still happening, then one of two things must be true. Either the people responsible for enforcing it are completely powerless, or they are fully aware and have simply chosen not to stop it. There is no third option. There is no innocent explanation hiding somewhere in the fine print. Both possibilities are a catastrophic indictment of every government, every institution, and every leader who stood in front of a camera and told the world that this agreement meant something. Pick whichever one you believe. Both of them mean Gaza was abandoned willfully, with criminal awareness.

The people of Gaza are not living through a diplomatic complication. They are living through an active bombardment that is being conducted underneath the legal and moral cover of a ceasefire that was never real. A mother in Gaza tonight is not thinking about the negotiation timeline or the political complexities of the region. She is trying to keep her children alive through another round of airstrikes that are happening during an agreement the entire world signed off on and then apparently forgot about by morning.

At some point, this stops being a failure of the process and becomes a defended feature of it. Failures get corrected. Things that keep happening over and over again, in the same way, with the same outcomes and the same silence from the same powerful countries, are not failures anymore. They are decisions. Well-fed, well-protected, and well-compensated decisions made by people who will never pay the toll they trigger.

Gaza is not a negotiating paragraph in a treaty. The people there are not abstractions in a geopolitical equation. They are human beings who were told the bombs would stop and then had to watch the bombs not stop. And the very least the rest of the world can do, the absolute minimum, is refuse to call this a ceasefire when it so visibly, so grotesquely, so inarguably is not one. Because if we cannot even get the words right, we were never serious about getting anything else right either.


About the author ~

Yumna Zahid Ali is a writer and educator who spends her free time reading, analyzing literature, and exploring cultural and intellectual debates. When she’s not writing for global audiences, she enjoys reflecting on societal issues and using her voice to challenge inequities, especially those affecting women. She also loves diving into history, believing that remembering the past is an act of defiance and a way to hold power accountable.




TAGS: Gaza ceasefire debate, ongoing bombings in Gaza, Middle East conflict opinion, international response to Gaza, humanitarian crisis commentary

Letter to the Editor |
The U.S. shouldn't bomb Iran back "where they belong"


Sentinel logo
Americans must look to diplomacy over the destruction in dealing with Iran.


Dear Editor,

In his address to the nation, President Trump said the U.S. would bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, "where they belong." He even threatened to destroy "electric generating plants."

What will this mean for the most vulnerable, such as hospital patients, the elderly, and newborns in intensive care?

Historian and political theorist Achille Mbembe, author of Necropolitics, coined the term “death-worlds,” describing how the powerful impose conditions on populations that amount to a living death. Mbembe writes, “The ultimate expression of sovereignty largely resides in the power and capacity to dictate who is able to live and who must die." Gaza is a notable example.

Have we forgotten that, shortly after 9/11, some 60,000 fans at a soccer match in Iran observed a minute of silence for the victims? Or that thousands in Tehran held candlelit vigils, showing solidarity and compassion?

We must reject Trump's dehumanizing language, reclaim our shared humanity, and choose diplomacy over destruction.


Terry Hansen
Grafton, WI

Terry Hansen is a retired educator from Grafton, WI, who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.



TAGS:

Viewpoint |
The costs of the Iran Conflict are rising, accountability is not


One month into a war the White House says is going well, this Viewpoint from Van Abbott argues the opposite — that the U.S.-Iran conflict is quietly eroding American economic strength, weakening global alliances, and repeating the strategic mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.


oursentinel.com viewpoint
by Van Abbott
Guest Commentator


The war is not won. It is not even close.

President Trump says otherwise. That claim is not a mistake. It is a necessity. Acknowledging failure would expose the truth this administration cannot afford to admit: one month into the conflict that began February 28 with Iran, the United States is poorer, weaker, and less secure than when it began.

The costs are already staggering. Tens of billions of dollars have been consumed with little to show beyond destruction. Fuel prices have surged, driving up transportation costs across the economy. Supply disruptions from the Gulf are beginning to ripple through American manufacturing. These are not abstract figures. They are the early signs of a war that is eroding economic strength at home while delivering no measurable gain abroad.


A declaration of victory is required to sustain support, even when conditions on the ground contradict it.

Strategically, the damage is deeper. American positions across the Middle East have contracted, not expanded. Analysts suggest U.S. military bases have been damaged, evacuated, or destroyed. Intelligence relationships have frayed as allies question Washington’s reliability after erratic decisions and unilateral strikes. Adversaries are not retreating; they are adapting. Russia benefits from higher energy prices that help finance its war in Ukraine. China is moving quickly to secure alternative trade routes and deepen its regional influence. While the White House speaks of dominance, the global balance of power is quietly shifting away from the United States.

At home, the consequences will not remain distant for long. War-inflation moves quickly and unevenly. Energy costs rise first, followed by food and housing. Wages lag behind. The administration describes these effects as temporary, but markets tend to recognize instability before governments admit it. Prolonged conflict will bring neither stability in the Middle East nor relief for American households. It will deliver sustained pressure on both.

History offers a warning the country has ignored before. Iraq was presented as liberation and ended in strategic exhaustion. Afghanistan became a twenty-year effort that concluded with the return of the very forces it sought to remove. These were failures not of courage or capability, but of purpose and judgment. Iran now risks becoming the next chapter in a pattern the United States has yet to break.

The deeper problem is political. This war cannot be easily concluded because it cannot be honestly assessed. A declaration of victory is required to sustain support, even when conditions on the ground contradict it. Information narrows. Public updates diminish. Official statements grow more confident as underlying realities become less certain. In that environment, the war becomes less a national undertaking than a controlled narrative.

It is worth asking who benefits from that narrative. Defense contractors secure long-term demand, energy producers profit from volatility, and political allies avoid difficult votes. The burdens fall elsewhere, on service members, on taxpayers, and on households adjusting to rising costs. The longer the conflict continues, the wider the gap grows between those who bear its costs and those who shape its direction.


War tests more than military strength. It tests whether a government can tell the truth about what it is doing and why.

President Trump once promised to end “endless wars.” Instead, this conflict risks becoming one. It is sustained not by clear objectives but by the political cost of reversal. A war without defined success can always be extended. A war without accountability can always be justified.

There is still time to limit the damage. Congress retains the constitutional authority to define and constrain the use of force. It can require transparency, set boundaries, and insist on measurable objectives. A free press can challenge official claims rather than repeat them. Citizens can demand clarity about costs, risks, and outcomes before accepting assurances of progress.

War tests more than military strength. It tests whether a government can tell the truth about what it is doing and why. When that capacity erodes, the outcome is determined long before the fighting ends.

Without accountability, the cycle will continue, draining national strength, distorting priorities, weakening alliances, and turning permanent conflict into a substitute for strategy and democratic consent.

This war was never winnable under the terms on which it was sold. That truth will not come from those who began it, but from the public that is paying for it and will continue to bear its cost.

Its consequences will outlast the last shot, echo beyond the last speech, and endure long after the final excuse has faded. The judgment they refuse to render will fall to the country they have led into war. Vote in November.


About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.





What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. . Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.


Viewpoint |
Has Trump gone too far? Respond at the ballot box if you think so


oursentinel.com viewpoint
This commentary questions whether Donald Trump has exceeded acceptable limits through a series of political and policy decisions. It outlines concerns ranging from pardons and foreign policy to economic impacts and domestic governance. The piece argues that many Americans are now feeling the effects of these actions.


oursentinel.com viewpoint
by John Mishler


Mr. Trump pardoned hundreds of individuals convicted of attempting to subvert a lawful and secure national election by a violent assault on law enforcement officers. Did he go too far? In addition, he pardoned several individuals convicted of cryptocurrency manipulation. Gone too far? He and his family have received hundreds of millions of dollars with their blatant cryto-related business ventures. Has he gone too far? He has received a 747 jetliner as a gift. Gone too far?

He has encouraged the unlawful removal of thousands of federal employees targeted by Elon Musk/DOGE. Gone too far? He has politicized various government departments (e.g., Department of Justice, Department of Defense, etc.) and demanded they follow his whims and desires, rather than uphold state, federal, and international laws. Has he gone too far? With his own hateful rhetoric he has encouraged ICE to brutalize innocent citizens and lawful immigrants, even allowing the murder of said American citizens, in addition to the deaths of immigrants held in federal detention centers. Gone too far?

He has torn down the East Wing of the White House, without proper approvals, to be replaced by a hideous, gigantic ballroom. Has he gone too far? He has “added” his name to the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Gone too far?

He has allowed two totally unqualified individuals (two real estate brokers) to negotiate extremely important treaties with Russia/Ukraine, Iran, and Gaza/Israel. Has he gone too far? He has disrupted important relationships the United States has with NATO and the European Union. Gone too far?


His “Big, Beautiful Bill,” has eliminated healthcare subsidies for millions of hardworking Americans

He has “pressured” law firms, colleges and universities, and media companies to “follow” his desire and eliminate DEI policies. Gone too far? He has instructed the Department of Justice to put forth criminal/civil charges against innocent political opponents without evidence of unlawful conduct. Has he gone too far?

His name has appeared in numerous documents related to the Epstein files, including an alleged incident of sexual assault against a minor. Has he gone too far? In addition, he is hindering the full and complete release of all documents, files, videos, photographs, and other pertinent materials related to the Epstein investigation. Gone too far?

Trump has “added on" additional taxes on imported goods, paid for by US citizens, by virtue of his imposed tariffs placed on products from foreign countries. Gone too far? His “Big, Beautiful Bill,” has eliminated healthcare subsidies for millions of hardworking Americans, as well as SNAP benefits. Gone too far?

Trump’s “unnecessary” war with Iran has resulted in the loss of lives of US service members, caused chaos in the Middle East, and significantly raised the price of gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and other petroleum-based products. Has he finally gone too far? Did he reach the tipping point…. yes. BUT why? For most Americans, all of the “misadventures” listed above, happened to other individuals/organizations and did not significantly/directly impact their own lives. However, as a result of his unjustified conflict/excursion/war, petroleum products NOW suddenly cost more and are rising on a daily basis - NOW, on a personal level, most Americans feel the “pain" of Mr. Trump’s foolish behavior.

Ergo, too many Americans have been “asleep” during the initial stages of Mr. Trump’s second term. BUT, now suddenly “personally feeling” the pain of higher prices at the gas pumps, soon to be followed by higher prices for most goods relying on gasoline/petroleum products, we have begun to notice how “tainted” Trump’s tenure as president has been.

Is there a remedy for his unrelenting toxic actions? Yes, the upcoming midterm elections, where Americans can elect candidates who care more about their constituents, than following the whims of Mr. Trump and his sycophants (“This year’s political candidates: carefully examine their party affiliation,” Storm Lake Times Pilot, 02/06/2026).

So, we can reclaim our Democracy in the coming election, BUT only if we support worthwhile candidates BY VOTING! Maybe a new cohort of honest and law-abiding US Senate and House members can thwart any further “how far is too far” misadventures by Mr. Trump.


About the author ~

John M. Mishler was a former Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Professor of Basic Life Sciences, Medicine, and Pharmacology at the University of Missouri. He currently resides in Harpswell, Maine.




TAGS: Donald Trump political commentary 2026, opinion on Trump policies and midterm elections, analysis of Trump economic and foreign policy impact, voter response to political controversies United States, midterm elections importance voter participation opinion

Guest Commentary |
A public health perspective on Iran: They are more like us than we think


oursentinel.com viewpoint
A global health expert's research revealed unexpected similarities between Iran and the United States—comparable life expectancy, higher literacy rates, and superior childhood immunization coverage—before U.S. and Israeli strikes began destroying hospitals, killing 160 schoolgirls, and creating food shortages. The data suggests Iranians lived lives not so different from Americans just weeks ago.


oursentinel.com viewpoint
by Mary Anne Mercer, MPH, DrPH


My work in global health always nudges me to learn about places and people I read about in the news. Right now: Iran, of course. Though I’ve never been there, I knew it was an incredibly old civilization, dating back several millennia with a vibrant culture and elegant, stunning architecture from the past. In recent decades it’s been led by a dictatorial, hard-line Muslim, the Supreme Leader.

I investigated a few facts about the country because understanding how the health of people in other settings compares with ours is often enlightening. Iran is poorer economically than the U.S., so the population probably would have lower living standards, life expectancy, and literacy rates than we do. I’ve worked in public health in a number of low-income countries, so I also expected that use of important services like immunizations for children and family planning for women would be limited.

A quick web search revealed that, indeed, our population is much wealthier than Iran’s. That country has a median income of $4300, compared to the U.S. with around $19,300.

But the other assumptions didn’t fit what I expected. A surprising 100% of the population has access to electricity. Much lower life expectancy? No, they are not dying at young ages: the average Iranian man in 2024 would live to be 76 years old, not far behind the American man at 77 years. I also didn’t expect that most of the main causes of death were the same as ours – heart disease, stroke, hypertension and injuries. Adult literacy, an important social determinant of health, was even more perplexing: only 11% of Iranians were nonliterate in 2023, compared to 21% of Americans around that time.

Maternal and child health practices are important monitors of a population’s well-being. So, another surprise: over 99% of Iranian children have the full set of immunizations by age five--while in the U.S. that rate is only 94% and said to be dropping. For women, childbearing patterns hint at their roles in family decision-making. How does that work in this solidly Muslim country? Another puzzler: at today’s birth rates, both Iranian and American women will have, on average, fewer than two children over their lifetimes.

Pondering these numbers, I couldn’t escape the feeling that Iranians were, put simply, very much like us. They have strong families, send their children off to school every day, have basic conveniences and an efficient public health system.

Or at least they did, until the current military onslaught by the U.S. and Israel began. Since then, the devastation of the country has been relentless: bombing of military targets with unknown numbers of civilian deaths— including the well-documented strike that killed some 160 schoolgirls. Over a dozen hospitals have been bombed, a pall of toxic “black rain” has fallen on Tehran as a result of the destruction of oil facilities, and food shortages in the cities are under way. It appears, however, that to date the death, destruction and massive displacement inflicted on their country has only strengthened the determination of the Iranian leadership, and also perhaps its people, to endure.

At some point this war will end. Until then the people of Iran, whose everyday lives had not been so very different from ours just a few weeks ago, will continue to go to bed every night wondering what hell the Americans and Israelis will inflict their country the next day.


About the author ~
Dr. Mary Anne Mercer is a University of Washington public health faculty member and author whose four-decade career has focused on maternal and child health in developing nations. Beginning with her transformative year providing immunizations in rural Nepal in 1978, she has developed health projects in 14 countries and authored books including Beyond the Next Village (2022) and Sickness and Wealth: The Corporate Assault on Global Health. Her recent work strengthening midwifery care through mobile technology in Timor-Leste has been adopted as a national program.





What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. . Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.

TAGS: Iran United States health comparison literacy immunization, Iran childhood vaccination rates 99 percent, U.S. Iran war civilian casualties hospitals bombed, global health perspective Middle East conflict

Viewpoint |
How Trump's decision to strike Iran fits a troubled history of U.S. intervention


oursentinel.com viewpoint
President Trump approved strikes that killed Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and over 165 children in a destroyed primary school, contradicting his earlier claims that Iran's nuclear program was "obliterated".


oursentinel.com viewpoint
by Van Abbott
Guest Commentator


They told Americans this would be a surgical strike, a narrow operation, a last resort. Instead, President Trump and his advisers approved an attack that toppled Iran’s supreme leader, wounded his son, and destroyed a primary school filled with girls. More than 165 children died in the opening hours, their classrooms reduced to rubble.

Iran will not remember Trump’s speeches. It will remember the sirens, the shattered buildings, and the small shoes pulled from the debris. Those images will live in the minds of Iranians for generations, turning grief into anger and anger into resolve.

To understand how destructive this decision may prove, it helps to recall how Iran’s conflict with the West began. In 1953 the CIA and British intelligence helped overthrow Iran’s elected prime minister after he moved to nationalize Iranian oil. The coup restored the Shah and tied Iran’s political future to Western strategic interests.

For many Iranians, the episode became lasting proof that Washington would undermine democracy to protect its power and economic interests.

When the 1979 Iranian revolution toppled the Shah, it did so partly in response to that history of interference. The bitterness deepened during the Iran–Iraq war, when the West supported Iraqi ruler Hussein. Decades of sanctions and unwavering Western support for Israel reinforced a belief inside Iran that the United States was not an honest broker.

Against that backdrop, Trump’s war does not represent a reset. It adds another bitter chapter to a history already defined by coups, sanctions, and conflict. For many Irania

ns, the strikes will not be seen as strategy but as confirmation of long-held suspicions about America.

The joint American and Israeli strikes that killed Ayatollah Khamenei may satisfy hawks in Washington and Jerusalem. Yet they also produced civilian casualties that will shape the views of a new generation of Iranians. The girls killed in that school were not soldiers or scientists. They were children sitting at their desks when the missiles struck.

Trump argues the attack was necessary because Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon. Yet his claim conflicts with both his own statements and long-standing intelligence assessments. Only eight months earlier he had declared Iran’s nuclear program “obliterated.” Intelligence agencies reported it had merely been delayed.

Over time, analysts who challenged Trump’s narrative found themselves sidelined. When leaders punish unwelcome facts, they weaken the guardrails meant to prevent reckless decisions.

Diplomacy fared no better. Trump placed sensitive negotiations in the hands of Jared Kushner and real estate developer Steve Witkoff. They met Iranian representatives without nuclear specialists present.

Witkoff warned publicly that Iran’s stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium could produce several bombs within weeks. Nuclear experts noted that enrichment level alone does not equal a functioning weapon.


Trump now insists Iran was on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, contradicting both his earlier claims and years of intelligence assessments.

Iranian negotiators suggested they might surrender that stockpile in exchange for sanctions relief. They also noted that enrichment accelerated only after Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement.

That decision sits at the center of the crisis. Trump dismantled an agreement designed to constrain Iran’s nuclear activity, then used the escalation that followed as justification for war.

Even some administration officials acknowledge that Israel’s determination to strike Iran shaped Washington’s timeline. U.S. forces moved first partly out of concern that unilateral Israeli action would trigger retaliation against American targets.

That danger extends far beyond the Middle East. Iran and its allies have long relied on covert operations and proxy attacks. By killing Iran’s top leaders and widening the conflict, Trump may also have increased the risk that retaliation could occur far from Tehran, potentially including inside the United States.

The path to war also raises troubling questions about diplomatic good faith. Negotiations continued even as military planning intensified. Iranian representatives reportedly learned the talks were over only after missiles were already in the air.

The result is a profound strategic gamble. Trump now insists Iran was on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, contradicting both his earlier claims and years of intelligence assessments.

Which version will the world believe?

More important, what will Iranians believe: that the United States intervened to remove a dangerous regime, or that it launched an unjust war that killed their leaders and their children?

Trump’s decision may have sealed a new generation of hostility. A history already marked by coups, sanctions, and regional conflict now carries fresh memories of destruction.

Peace in the Middle East has always been fragile. After this war, it may be far harder to imagine. And Americans may yet discover that the consequences do not stop overseas.


About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.





What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. . Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.

Trump Iran military strike 2026 civilian casualties, Ayatollah Khamenei killed U.S. attack, Iran nuclear weapons program Trump claims, U.S. Iran relations historical context 1953 coup

Loading latest story ...




Taking on one of personal care's least-talked-about problems

(PRNewswire) Chicago -- There are products for sweaty armpits, sweaty feet and sweaty faces. But when sweat shows up somewhere a little less comfortable to talk about, the options get limited fast.

Chicago-based Cheek Sheets is looking to change that.
Cheek Sheets today announced the launch of its namesake absorbent sheets, an ultra-thin, dry and discreet personal-care product designed to help absorb sweat and manage unwanted moisture between the cheeks before it becomes uncomfortable, embarrassing or funky.


| Most recent articles

Loading recent stories ...


| Home Improvement

Loading recent stories ...


| Opinions

Loading recent stories ...



More Sentinel Stories