The deficit of intelligence

Allow me to recall what Pete Hegseth recently said: “The only thing preventing transit through the Strait of Hormuz right now is Iran shooting at ships. It is open for transit—if Iran were not doing that.” One is left wondering how such reasoning can be presented with a straight face, as it effectively states that the route is “open” except for the very condition that renders it unusable. How stupid can he possibly be?

Troubling words on age in politics

During a speech on 9 March 2026 at the Republican Members Issues Conference, Donald Trump delivered a line that quickly circulated across media and social platforms: “Your daughter, she has to be of age, like above 6 years old.”

Even if intended in the narrow context of discussing voter identification rules, the wording was deeply troubling. The phrase “of age” has a clear and widely understood meaning in English: it refers to legal adulthood. Placing it next to “above 6 years old” produces a disturbing juxtaposition that no responsible public figure should casually make, particularly when referring to children.

Political leaders carry a responsibility not only for the policies they promote but also for the language they use. Words matter. When the language surrounding children becomes careless or ambiguous, it invites confusion at best and outrage at worst. In public life, precision is not a luxury—it is an obligation.

This episode illustrates a broader problem that has come to define Trump’s political style: rhetoric delivered with little regard for clarity, context, or consequence. Supporters may dismiss the remark as a verbal slip, but the pattern of careless phrasing from someone occupying the highest office in the United States should concern anyone who values responsible leadership.

A president’s words shape public discourse. They set the tone for the country and often echo far beyond the moment they are spoken. That is precisely why those words must be chosen with care. When they are not, the damage is immediate—and entirely avoidable.

Victory That Requires Help

By now the public has heard the claim repeated several times by Donald Trump: the United States has already won the war against Iran. Iran’s military power, we are told, has been shattered. Its nuclear capability has supposedly been eliminated. The threat, according to the White House narrative, has been neutralized.

If that is true, a simple question follows: why does the conflict continue?

Wars that are truly won normally produce a clear next step—de-escalation, negotiation, or withdrawal. Instead, the opposite appears to be happening. The United States is expanding operations and asking other countries to send warships to patrol the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most sensitive maritime chokepoints in the world.

This raises a series of contradictions that deserve closer scrutiny.

First, the administration insists that the war has already been won. Yet additional military operations are continuing, including new strikes on Iranian targets. If Iran’s capacity to threaten the United States and its allies has been eliminated, what exactly is the purpose of these continued attacks?

Second, the stated justification for the initial American strike was that Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons had been “completely obliterated.” The president himself declared that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been destroyed and that Tehran could no longer pursue a nuclear weapon.

If that claim is accurate, the strategic objective that justified the war has already been achieved. Yet the bombing continues.

Third, there is the question of allies. For years, the same administration emphasized that the United States does not need anyone. The message was simple: America is powerful enough to act alone and defend its interests without relying on others.

Now, however, Washington is asking other nations to deploy warships to the region to secure maritime traffic.

This creates another uncomfortable contradiction. If the United States does not need anyone, why is it requesting assistance? And if assistance is necessary, was the earlier claim ever realistic?

There is also a broader concern. By calling on other countries to send naval forces into an already tense and volatile theater, the United States risks widening the conflict. What began as a joint military action with Israel could gradually evolve into a multinational confrontation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly stated that confronting Iran in this manner is something he has sought for decades. When such long-standing geopolitical ambitions intersect with an expanding military coalition, the risk of escalation increases significantly.

History shows how easily such escalations can occur. A single miscalculation in a crowded waterway like the Strait of Hormuz—where a large portion of the world’s oil supply passes—could draw additional nations into a conflict that none of them originally sought.

None of these questions necessarily imply weakness. Military operations are complex, and strategic realities often evolve. But they do reveal something important about how wars are presented to the public.

Political leaders frequently declare victory early. It projects confidence and shapes the narrative. Yet reality rarely conforms so neatly to political messaging.

If the war is already won, it should be possible to explain why it continues. If the nuclear threat has already been eliminated, it should be clear why further bombing is necessary. And if the United States truly does not need anyone, it should not have to ask other nations to share the burden of the conflict.

These are not partisan questions. They are questions of clarity and accountability.

Because in matters of war, the public deserves something better than shifting explanations and contradictory claims. The stakes are too high—for the United States, for the region, and for the world.

The New Logic of War: Attack First, Explain Later

Let’s take a moment to recap. Russia invaded Ukraine without being under direct threat. The United States bombed Iran without having been attacked. And during Trump’s current term alone, U.S. military strikes have reportedly extended to Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, and Venezuela.

If this is the emerging standard of international conduct, then the message to the world seems unmistakable: any country may now strike another without the burden of offering a convincing explanation.

Taken to its logical extreme, the principle becomes even more unsettling. If power alone is sufficient justification, why should the logic stop at national borders? One could imagine a future in which even states within the United States claim extraordinary measures against one another under the same reasoning. Once the norm is broken, its limits become difficult to define.

During the election campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly assured voters that he would not start wars. In fact, he insisted that it was Kamala Harris who would lead the United States into new conflicts. Yet the unfolding reality appears rather different.

Perhaps there is little to learn from such contradictions—except that it would hardly be surprising if Trump still finds reason to believe he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

The Epstein Files in the Background of a Widening War

dominiquemellow.com

Questions continue to circulate regarding allegations connected to records from the investigations into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and whether additional documents could implicate prominent public figures, including U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump has frequently pursued legal action against critics, media organizations, and others over statements he considers defamatory. However, he has not filed defamation lawsuits specifically targeting individuals or groups who claim that the still-partially unreleased Epstein-related files could contain allegations involving him.
Trump has repeatedly denied any involvement in Epstein’s criminal activities and has said he was effectively cleared of wrongdoing. Publicly released Epstein-related documents mention numerous public figures, though being referenced in such records does not establish guilt.

The issue has drawn renewed attention because of developments involving Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime associate, who is serving a prison sentence after being convicted of sex-trafficking offenses. Maxwell’s legal team has suggested she might be willing to provide further testimony about Epstein’s network if granted clemency or legal protections.

At the same time, the United States has become increasingly involved in a widening military confrontation in the Middle East involving Israel and Iran. According to official statements from the United States Department of Defense and United States Central Command, six U.S. military personnel have been killed so far in the conflict.

Iranian officials present a sharply different account. Statements attributed to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iranian state media claim that U.S. forces have suffered significantly higher losses, alleging that hundreds of American personnel have been killed or wounded. These claims have not been independently verified.

The simultaneous developments have fueled speculation in some online and political circles that the escalating conflict may divert public attention from ongoing questions about the Epstein files and the potential release of additional records. Some rumors circulating on social media and in political commentary have gone further, alleging that Israeli leadership, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, could possess information related to the Epstein case and might be using it to exert pressure on Trump in the context of regional policy decisions. No credible evidence has been presented publicly to support these claims, and neither government has acknowledged such allegations.

Many documents connected to the Epstein investigations remain sealed or only partially disclosed, leaving questions about Epstein’s broader network and contacts the subject of continuing public and political debate.

Where the Horizon Recedes

The horizon keeps retreating,

a promise dissolving into ash.

It darkens—iron-grey—

until even memory cannot trace its line.

 

The sea has turned to rust and wine;

its waters blush with what they carry.

Souls drift downward,

netted in silence no one cast.

 

There is no hour left for dreaming.

Dreams themselves refuse to form.

To begin again feels obscene,

as if birth were only another wound.

 

Men kneel and whisper upward,

but heaven tilts unattended.

The scales hang broken in the air,

and no hand steadies their descent.

 

Death has misplaced its face.

It no longer startles—

it walks uncovered, unnamed,

through streets that do not look away.

 

No warning.

No mask.

Only habit.

 

It has become ordinary.

 

Love, too, has forgotten its features—

no tender smile,

no sheltering arms.

It passes like a stranger

who does not recognize its own reflection.

 

It is like returning to a room once filled with light

and finding the windows bricked.

Like waking to discover

the sun is a story we once told children.

 

Sight recedes.

Thought thins.

Intelligence stands silent at the margins,

unconsulted, unnecessary.

 

And hatred—

hatred governs without resistance,

a sovereign crowned by apathy.

 

Even God seems diminished,

as though divinity itself

were a fading echo

in a universe that no longer listens.

Dominique Mellow

March 4, 2026

The Billion-Dollar Silence: Why the Justice Department Still Won’t Explain Epstein’s 4,725 Wire Transfers

Forbes

The American public has been told for years that the Justice Department is committed to transparency, especially when it comes to the crimes of the powerful. Yet buried somewhere inside the Treasury Department—literally in a drawer, according to Senate testimony—sits a file detailing 4,725 wire transfers connected to Jeffrey Epstein, totaling about $1.1 billion, that no administration has ever fully explained.

These are not minor bookkeeping anomalies. They represent a vast, years‑long flow of money through the accounts of a convicted sex offender who operated a global trafficking network. And still, the public has no answers about who sent these transfers, who received them, or what purpose they served.

What we do know is damning enough. Senator Ron Wyden, who has spent years pressing for financial transparency around Epstein’s operations, revealed that the Trump administration refused to investigate or disclose the details of these transactions. He described the file as “full of actionable information,” yet locked away and ignored.

This is not a partisan talking point. It is a matter of public record that the Treasury and DOJ under Trump declined to release the Epstein banking data to Congress, despite repeated requests. Wyden’s investigators also found evidence that Epstein used Russian banks to move additional hundreds of millions—another red flag that never received a full federal review.

The Department of Justice’s job is not to protect the reputations of the well‑connected. Its job is to enforce the law. Yet in this case, the DOJ allowed a massive trove of suspicious financial activity—activity that could illuminate the structure of Epstein’s network—to sit untouched. Even after Epstein’s death, even after civil suits exposed institutional failures at major banks, even after victims demanded answers, the government’s response has been silence.

That silence has consequences. Every unanswered question fuels public distrust. Every withheld document suggests that the powerful are shielded from scrutiny. And every day that passes without a full accounting of Epstein’s financial network makes it harder to understand who enabled him, who funded him, and who may still be operating in the shadows.

The public does not need speculation. It needs transparency. Release the file. Explain the transfers. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Anything less is a dereliction of justice.

https://www.dominiquemellow.com/