Decency

dominiquemellow.com

I am someone who strives to measure life by the standard of decency. Yet, after years of attempting to find even a semblance of decency in Donald Trump’s words and actions, I must admit that the effort is futile. He is not deserving of my attention or my attempts to understand him. In my experience, he is the most dishonest person I have ever encountered, and I would add that anyone who accepts his statements at face value is profoundly foolish.

Britain’s Convenient Neutrality Is No Neutrality at All

dominiquemellow.com

There is a particular kind of political posture that seeks moral credit without paying the moral cost. The United Kingdom appears, once again, to have perfected it.

Faced with the escalating conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, Britain has chosen what it presents as a cautious middle path: it has refrained from openly joining offensive military operations, while simultaneously allowing American forces to use British bases to conduct them.

This is not neutrality. It is participation by proxy.

By granting access to installations such as RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall, the British government is not merely offering logistical convenience—it is enabling military action. War does not begin at the moment a pilot crosses into hostile airspace; it begins where the infrastructure that makes that mission possible is provided, approved, and sustained.

To claim distance from the consequences while facilitating their execution is, at best, a contradiction. At worst, it is a deliberate attempt to avoid accountability.

The government may argue that this arrangement reflects long-standing defence agreements with the United States, or that it preserves strategic alliances in a volatile world. Those points are not without merit. But they do not resolve the central tension: if a war is deemed too dangerous, too escalatory, or too politically fraught to join, then on what ethical basis is it acceptable to assist it from the sidelines?

This dual posture—refusal in principle, support in practice—creates the illusion of restraint while preserving the substance of involvement. It allows Britain to speak the language of de-escalation in public while contributing, however indirectly, to escalation in reality.

Meanwhile, other countries have made clearer choices. Some have declined participation outright, unwilling to risk entanglement in a widening conflict. Others have aligned openly with one side or the other. These positions may be debated, even criticised, but they possess a clarity that Britain’s stance lacks.

Clarity matters. Especially in war.

Because the consequences are not abstract. Civilian casualties in Iran continue to mount, and the risk of a broader regional confrontation grows by the day. In such circumstances, ambiguity is not prudence—it is evasion.

Britain cannot indefinitely occupy this middle ground. If it believes the conflict is justified, it should say so and accept the responsibilities that follow. If it believes the conflict is misguided, it should withhold not only its troops, but also the means that make those operations possible.

Anything else is a carefully managed contradiction.

And contradictions, in times of war, have a way of collapsing under the weight of reality.

Generals, conspiracies, and broken oaths

dominiquemellow.com

 A nation’s people must be able to trust their armed forces—above all, their generals. In the case of the United States, if military leaders were to carry out unlawful orders or engage in a war driven by political pressure—such as a decision influenced by Benjamin Netanyahu persuading Donald Trump to align with Israel against Iran—then those generals would share responsibility. They would be complicit in the problem and in failing to uphold their oath to the Constitution.
While a nation may, at times, lose confidence in its president, losing trust in its generals signals something far more serious—a deep and troubling erosion at the core of the state.

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.