Features

The United States mourns the death of former President Jimmy Carter

Published

1 year ago

2025/01/5

Thilina Walpola

Jimmy Carter with Nobel Prize

by Vijaya Chandrasoma

An already dreadful year for the United States of America ended with more tragedy, with the death of one of the finest human beings ever to have adorned the White House. The 39th President James Earl (Jimmy) Carter Jr passed away peacefully at his home in Plains, Georgia on Sunday, December 29, surrounded by his family. He was 100-years old, the longest-lived president in US history.

Born and raised in the predominantly Republican state of Georgia, Carter graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1946, and joined the Navy’s submarine service. At the end of his military service, he retuned to his home in Plains, Georgia, and revived his family’s peanut farm. He married Rosalynn Smith in 1946, with whom he enjoyed a blessed, loving union until her death, at age 96, last year.

A pious man and a lifelong Baptist, whose actions were invariably rooted in his religious faith, Carter left a legacy of fidelity, compassion and justice. Like all politicians, he did, on at least one occasion, betray his principles in the name of political expediency, though, in Carter’s case, this probably was the exception that proved the rule.

Carter was a true Democrat in a traditionally deep red, white supremacist state. Having grown up in the era of Jim Crow segregation laws, he abhorred all types of racism and was an ardent supporter of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He became a community leader, serving in various county boards of education and the hospital authority. He won election to the Georgia Senate in 1962, and entered the national political arena in 1966, when he ran for and lost the Georgia gubernatorial election in 1966. He ran again and won in 1970, when he was elected the 76th Governor of Georgia.

Despite his early stance on civil rights, Carter seemingly betrayed his principles by appealing to the racist majority in the electorate. He even criticized his Democratic Primary opponent, former Governor Carl Sanders, for supporting civil rights icon, Martin Luther King Jr. He understood, and took advantage of, the stark political fact that he had little chance of winning the election in Georgia without a seemingly conservative, even subtly racist stance. Perhaps the end justified the means.

And win he did. But a racist he wasn’t. He changed his tune immediately after he was sworn in as the Governor of Georgia in January 1971. In his inaugural speech, he declared that “the time for racial discrimination is over”. Carter’s liberal, anti-discriminatory policies and emphasis on a pollution-free environment formed the bases of his gubernatorial term. He also enacted legislation to remove racial barriers and established several key projects to develop the state’s economy.

In 1974, when the nation was recovering from the Watergate scandal and was ruled by the makeshift presidency of Gerald Ford, the only unelected president in the nation’s history, Carter declared his bid for the presidency. He was little known nationally; even the Atlanta newspapers carried the headline “Jimmy Who?” immediately after his announcement.

Carter won the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1976; the Democratic ticket of Carter/Mondale defeated Gerald Ford with a 51% majority in the popular vote and an Electoral College majority of 297 to 240. Carter was sworn in as the 39th President of the United States in January, 1977.

Jimmy Carter was a fine president, but a terrible politician. He was a champion of human rights; bolstered Social Security, added nearly eight million jobs and sought to improve the environment.

He negotiated a meeting with Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, ending with the Camp David Accords which led to peace between Israel and Egypt the following year.

Carter attended a summit meeting with Soviet Prime Minister, Leonid Brezhnev in Vienna in 1979, which led to the signing of the SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) II. The Treaty basically established nuclear equality between the two nations; limiting the total of both nations’ nuclear forces to 2,250 delivery vehicles each, and placing a variety of other restrictions on deployed strategic nuclear forces.

He also established full diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China.

Carter was unsuccessful in a bid for a second term in 1980, when he was defeated by the political machinations of the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan. Carter’s campaign was initially hurt when Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy decided to challenge Carter in the Democratic Primaries. Kennedy, an avowed liberal and a scion of the most famous political dynasty of the nation, was not happy with the right-wing trend of the incumbent, and ran a campaign to humiliate his opponent. Kennedy knew full well that his presidential aspirations were severely compromised after the tragedy at Chappaquiddick, when the then Massachusetts Senator drove his car, allegedly under the influence of liquor, off a narrow bridge, resulting in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a secretary and campaign worker in the ill-fated presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy. Carter finally clinched the nomination but emerged from the Primaries with a fractured Democratic base.

But the one issue that contributed to Carter’s defeat was the Iran hostage crisis. In November 1979, revolutionaries against the regime of the US-backed Shah Reza Pahlavi stormed the American Embassy in Teheran and took hostage 52 diplomats and civilian staff. The takeover happened months after the fall of the government of the Shah, who was living in exile in the US at the time.

The year-long crisis undermined Carter’s reputation, both at home and abroad. His popularity eroded further after a failed attempt to take back the embassy and rescue the hostages. Eight service members died in an accident during the attempt. Carter accepted the fact that his failure to rescue the hostages was the primary cause for his electoral defeat in 1980.

However, his defeat may have been caused by the traditional sinister political artifices of the Republican Party. A rumor, which has since been confirmed, emerged that Republican political operatives, led by William Casey, Reagan’s campaign manager, later appointed by Reagan as the head of the CIA (Central Information Agency, the nation’s leading espionage organization), played a major role in the delay of the release of the hostages. The New York Times reported in 2023 that Casey and Republican campaign officials traveled “to one Middle Eastern Capital after another that Summer (of 1980), meeting with a host of regional leaders to deliver a blunt message to be passed to Iran: Don’t release the hostages before the election. Mr. Reagan will win and give you a better deal”.

The hostages were formally released into American custody just minutes after President Reagan was sworn into office.

And so began the Reagan regime, which initiated the process of dismantling a thriving middle class by cutting taxes to benefit the super-wealthy and the corporations, the infamous and debunked “Trickle Down Theory”, which Trump will fine-tune to perfection by the end of his second term, to an oligarchic kleptocracy.

According to the Logan Act, it is illegal for private citizens to negotiate with a foreign power to “defeat the measures of the United States”. A law that has been broken with impunity by the Trump Organization with their collusion with the Russian government in the US elections and other matters of national security before and during Trump’s first term. Who can forget Trump’s announcement at a pre-2016 election rally, when he shouted “RUSSIA, ARE YOU LISTENING?”, publicly seeking assistance from Russian intelligence in finding non-existent illegalities in Hillary Clinton’s emails in her private server. And even in his capacity of President, when he took Russian President Putin’s version of Russian collusion in the 2016 US presidential election, against all 17 US Intelligence Agencies. On the world stage at the Summit in Helsinki in 2018, an act of complicity bordering on treason.

But it really matters no longer. The majority of American voters have made their incredibly deplorable, dangerous choice in electing a caricature of a dictator. They have proven themselves immune to non-compliance of international and national laws, even war crimes. The next four years will be fraught with peril.

Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 “for his decades of untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social welfare”. Twenty-five years too late.

Since 1984, Carter and his wife of nearly eight decades, Rosalynn, have been personally involved in building and renovating homes for the poor with Habitat for Humanity. He was actively engaged in the project till almost the day he died.

Jimmy Carter got the totally unjustified reputation of being an anti-Semite, when he wrote a bestselling book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, published in 2006. He likened the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories to Apartheid, the disgraced South African racial segregation laws, which were almost a carbon copy of the Jim Crow racial segregation laws which ruled the United States of America from 1877 to the mid-1960s, laws under which Carter was born and raised.

Political leaders in the USA lined up to denounce former President Carter, because of his seeming pro-Palestine cause. He was vilified as a “bigot”, who had a “Jewish problem.” He was accused of “facilitating those who pursue Israel’s annihilation” and “blinded by an anti-Israel animus”. Even Democratic leaders like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw Carter under the bus, stating that “Carter does not speak for the Democratic party on Israel”.

Nearly two decades later, these same critics are beginning to appreciate the prescience of Carter’s views, as they are now accusing Israel of imposing a form of Apartheid on the Palestinians in breach of international laws. Carter was not only way ahead of his time, he was also showing that brand of moral rectitude and courage, without fear of consequences, which has been the distinction of his entire public and private life.

Kai Bird, the author of a recent biography of Carter’s presidency, wrote in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, in 2021:

“The former president’s decision to use the word ‘Apartheid’ no longer seems a stretch; indeed, today it seems to describe the reality on the ground in the occupied West Bank. I don’t think Carter has a Jewish problem. It’s just the reverse. The American Jewish establishment has a Jimmy Carter problem”.

Public observances honoring President Carter’s legacy will start in Georgia. His body will lie in repose at the Carter Center in Atlanta, where the public can pay their respects till January 7. He will then lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda in Washington DC, which will be open to the public till the funeral at the Washington National Cathedral at 10 a.m. on Thursday, January 9.

Carter had requested President Biden, a close friend, to deliver the eulogy at the funeral, which Biden considered an honor and a privilege. Former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump are expected to be in attendance, along with their spouses.

Following the state funeral, the late president will be taken back to Georgia, to be buried at the Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, where he had taught Sunday School for decades, at the same location his wife, Rosalynn was buried following her death last year.

President Jimmy Carter was without doubt the greatest ex-President in the history of the USA.

I wish everyone a very happy and healthy 2025. Notwithstanding Trump.

All News Advertisement

Features

The Digital Pulse: How AI is redefining health care in Sri Lanka?

Published

21 hours ago

2026/04/20

Thilina Walpola

A quiet yet profound shift is underway in American healthcare, and its implications extend far beyond the United States’ borders. A recent Associated Press report describes a scene that would have seemed improbable, even five years ago: a woman in Texas, experiencing side effects from a weightloss injection, does not call her doctor, visit a clinic, or even search Google. Instead, she opens her phone and consults ChatGPT. She tells the system how she feels, describes her symptoms, and receives an instant explanation. This behaviour, once the domain of early adopters and technology enthusiasts, has now entered the mainstream. A West Health–Gallup poll confirms that nearly onequarter of American adults used an AI tool for health information or advice in the previous month. For a country with one of the world’s most expensive and fragmented healthcare systems, this shift is not merely a technological curiosity. It is a sign of the public searching for speed, clarity, and affordability in a system that often fails to provide any of these.

Sri Lanka, though vastly different in scale, culture, and resources, is not insulated from this global transformation. If anything, the pressures that drive Americans toward AI—long wait times, high costs, difficulty accessing specialists—are even more acute in our own health system. The difference is that Sri Lanka is only beginning to experience the cultural and institutional adjustments that accompany widespread AI use. Yet the trajectory is unmistakable. What is happening in the United States today is almost certainly a preview of what will happen here tomorrow in Sri Lanka, though in a form shaped by our own social realities, linguistic diversity, and healthcare traditions.

The American experience shows that AI is becoming the new gateway to health information. As Dr. Karandeep Singh of UC San Diego observes, AI tools now function as an improved version of the old Google search. Instead of sifting through dozens of links, users receive a concise, conversational summary tailored to their question. This is precisely the kind of convenience that Sri Lankans, too, will find irresistible. In a country where a single specialist appointment can require hours of travel, waiting, and uncertainty, the appeal of an instant, alwaysavailable digital assistant is obvious. The idea that one could ask a question about a rash, a fever, a medication side effect, or a lab report and receive an immediate explanation—without navigating hospital queues or private consultation fees—will inevitably attract public interest. For example, one of my friends, who was with me in school, called me and said he is prescribed Linavic, a drug for type 2 diabetes. I told him that, as it is not widely known in the USA, to give me the generic name. He searched ChatGPT and told me it is called Tradjenta, which is widely available in the USA as a prescription drug for type 2 diabetes.

But Sri Lanka’s path will not be identical to America’s. Our adoption of AI in healthcare is emerging through institutions rather than individuals. Nawaloka Hospitals has already introduced AI-powered chatbots, including NASHA, an OPD assistant capable of guiding patients through symptom assessment and basic triage. This is a significant development because it signals that Sri Lankan hospitals are preparing for a future in which AI is not an optional addon but a core part of patient interaction. The government’s draft National AI Strategy reinforces this direction by identifying healthcare as a priority sector and emphasising responsible, transparent, and safe deployment. Academic bodies, such as the Sri Lanka Medical Association, have also begun training clinicians to understand and work alongside AI systems. These are early but important steps, suggesting that Sri Lanka is building the professional ecosystem needed for safe AI integration.

Yet, the public’s relationship with AI remains limited. Unlike in the United States, where consumers independently experiment with tools like ChatGPT, Sri Lankans tend to rely on doctors as the primary source of authority. Digital literacy varies widely, especially outside urban centres. Sinhala and Tamilcapable AI tools are still developing. And our society has a long history of health misinformation spreading rapidly through social media, from miracle cures to conspiracy theories. Without careful regulation and public education, AI could amplify these risks rather than reduce them. The danger is not that AI will replace doctors, but that poorly informed users may treat AI outputs as definitive diagnoses, bypassing professional care when it is urgently needed.

At the same time, Sri Lankans’ lived experiences reveal why AI will inevitably become part of the healthseeking landscape. Anyone who has visited the outpatient department of a major government hospital knows the reality: queues forming before dawn, patients clutching files and prescriptions, and overworked medical officers trying to see hundreds of cases in a single shift. In rural areas, the situation is even more challenging. A villager in Monaragala or Mullaitivu may have to travel hours to see a specialist, often relying on neighbours or family for transport. Many postpone care simply because they are unsure whether a symptom is serious enough to justify the journey. For such individuals, an AI-based triage tool—available on a basic smartphone, in Sinhala or Tamil—could be transformative. It could help them decide whether to seek immediate care, wait for the next clinic day, or manage the issue at home.

Sri Lanka’s private healthcare sector, too, is ripe for AI integration. Private hospitals are increasingly turning to digital systems for appointment scheduling, lab report delivery, and patient communication. Anyone who has waited for hours at a private OPD, despite having an appointment, knows the frustration. AI-driven systems could help streamline patient flow, predict peak times, and reduce bottlenecks. They could also assist doctors by summarising patient histories, flagging potential drug interactions, and providing evidencebased guidelines. For patients, AI could offer explanations of lab results in simple language, reducing anxiety and improving understanding.

There are already glimpses of this future. Some Sri Lankan patients, especially younger urban professionals, quietly admit that they use AI tools to interpret their blood tests before seeing a doctor.

Others use AI to understand the side effects of medications prescribed to them. Parents use AI to check whether a child’s fever pattern is typical or concerning. Migrant workers, returning home for short visits, use AI to prepare questions for their doctors, ensuring they make the most of limited consultation time. These behaviours mirror the early stages of the American trend, though on a smaller scale.

Sri Lanka’s cultural context will shape how AI is used. Our society places great trust in doctors, often viewing them as authoritative figures whose word should not be questioned. This trust is a strength, but it can also discourage patients from seeking information independently. AI has the potential to shift this dynamic—not by undermining doctors, but by empowering patients to participate more actively in their own care. A patient who understands their condition is better able to follow treatment plans, ask relevant questions, and recognise warning signs. AI can support this empowerment, provided it is used responsibly.

The deeper question is not whether Sri Lanka will adopt AI in healthcare, but how. The American example shows both the promise and the peril. AI can democratise access to information, reduce anxiety, and empower patients. But it can also mislead, oversimplify, or create false confidence. The challenge for Sri Lanka is to build a culture of responsible use—one that recognises AI as a tool, not a substitute for clinical judgment. Hospitals must ensure accuracy and transparency. Regulators must set standards. And the public must learn to treat AI as a guide, not a guru.

Sri Lanka has an opportunity to leapfrog. By studying the American experience, we can avoid its pitfalls and adopt its strengths. We can design AI systems that respect our linguistic diversity, our cultural habits, and our healthcare realities. We can integrate AI into hospitals in ways that enhance, rather than erode, the doctor-patient relationship. And we can prepare our citizens to use these tools wisely, with curiosity but also with caution.

The transformation is already underway. It will accelerate whether we prepare for it or not. The question for Sri Lanka is whether we will shape this future deliberately or allow it to shape us by default. The American shift toward AImediated healthcare is a reminder that technology does not wait for societies to catch up. It moves forward, and nations must decide whether to follow passively or lead thoughtfully. Sri Lanka, with its strong public health tradition and growing technological ambition, has every reason to choose the latter.

by Prof Amarasiri de Silva

Features

Not a dog barked

Published

21 hours ago

2026/04/20

Thilina Walpola

I began running on the beach after a fall on a broken pavement left me with a head injury and a surgically repaired eyebrow. Mount Lavinia beach, world‑famous and crowded, especially on Sundays, is only a seven‑minute walk from home, so it became the obvious place for my rehabilitation jogs.

On my first day, my wife, a true Mount Lavinia girl, accompanied me. Though we’ve been married for over 40 years, this was the first time I had ever jogged on the beach. She practically shepherded me there and watched from a safe distance as I made my way towards the Wellawatte breakwater. Dogs were everywhere: some strays, some with collars. I’m not usually afraid of dogs, so I ran past them confidently. Then one fellow barked sharply, making me stop. He advanced even after I stood still. I bent down, picked up some sand, and only then did he retreat, still protesting loudly. On my return run, he repeated the performance.

The next time, I carried a stick. The beach was quiet, perhaps my friend had taken the day off. But on the third day he was back, barking as usual. I showed him the stick and continued. Further along, more dogs barked, and I repeated the ritual. Soon I found myself growing jittery, even numb, whenever I approached a dog. Jogging was no longer comfortable.

My elder daughter, an ardent animal lover who keeps two dogs and wanting to have more, suggested bribery, specifically, biscuits. So, on my next run, I filled my pocket with them. When the usual culprit appeared, I tossed him a biscuit before he could bark. He sniffed suspiciously, then ate it. I jogged on. The rest of the “orchestra” received similar treatment and promptly forgot to bark. Not a dog barked the entire run, or on my way back.

Some groups had five or six dogs, but bribing the noisiest one was enough to quieten the rest. Soon they grew used to me running close to them, and the biscuits made me a trusted friend. These round little sugary crackers turned out to be the perfect currency for seemingly aggressive but essentially harmless dogs, a fact well known to my daughter, Dr. Honda Hitha, but a revelation to me.

One day, a friendly dog decided to escort me home. After receiving his biscuit, he lingered near our gate before returning to the beach. Over time, the number of escorts grew until I found myself flanked by about 10 canine disciples. They became my strength instead of a source of fear. They were darlings. Unlike humans, their affection, even if won initially with biscuits, soon became unconditional.

They still accompany me home, whether or not they receive a treat. Bless them! May they be born human in their next lives, perhaps the only way our wicked world can become a better place.

by Dr. M. M. Janapriya

Features

It’s Israel and US that need a regime change

Published

21 hours ago

2026/04/20

Thilina Walpola

Netanyahu and Trump

If there is one country that urgently needs a regime change it is Israel. The whole world is suffering and thousands of people, including children and women, are dying due to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival strategy. He needs the war to avoid going to jail and also certain defeat at the next elections. The corruption and other charges against him, if proved, would send him to jail. He had asked the Israel President for a pardon and his friend Trump also has written to the President, on his behalf.

Netanyahu is able to commit genocide in Gaza with impunity because the US backs him to the hilt, economically, politically, militarily and also in the United Nations. Without all this, Israel will not be able to fight its many wars and pursue its “Greater Israel” project in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and also weaken the countries that oppose its grand plan, such as Iran, Yemen and Turkey. The US gives military aid to Israel, worth USD 3.8 bn, annually, which is used in these genocidal wars and expansionist projects. The US is, therefore, complicit in all these war crimes.

US presidents, beginning from Eisenhower (1950) to Joe Biden (2022), expressed displeasure at Israeli aggression. Ronald Reagan halted the shipment of cluster artillery shells, in 1982, over concerns about their use against civilians in Lebanon, and delayed the delivery of F-16 warplanes until Israel withdrew from Lebanon. George H.W. Bush (1990s) postponed $10 billion in loan guarantees in 1991 to pressure Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank and to attend the Madrid peace conference. Barack Obama frequently criticised Israeli settlement expansion and, in the final days of his term, withheld a US UN Security Council veto on a resolution regarding settlements. Joe Biden (2020s) threatened to withhold military aid if Israel launched a major offensive in Rafah during the 2024 conflict in Gaza, pausing a shipment of heavy bombs. Most of these presidents had been in favour of the two state solution for the Palestine problem as well.

Trump abandoned these longstanding US policies on Israel that were upheld by Obama and later restored by Biden. Significant and far-reaching changes, included recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moving the embassy, declaring settlements not inherently illegal, and recognising Golan Heights, which belonged to Syria, as part of Israel sovereignty. These evil deeds of Trump seem to have boomeranged on him as he battles to extricate himself from a war forced on him by Israel, which has resulted in enormous economic and political, not to mention military, losses for the US and Trump. Consequently Israel, in the eyes of many leading political commentators, is now a liability for the US.

How this war was started reveals the dastardly and barbaric mentality of Netanyahu and Trump. The US and Iran were engaged in negotiations, with the mediation of Oman, to resolve their differences, and on 26 February, 2026, the Foreign Minister of Iran stated that a historical agreement with the US was about to be entered into and, the following day, Oman corroborated this announcement. Iran apparently had agreed that its nuclear programme could be brought under the surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Surprisingly on 28 February, 2026, Israel and the US attacked Iran, Trump saying that it posed a nuclear threat to the US! Oman said it was “dismayed” and the Iranian Foreign Minister said it was a “betrayal”. Obviously, Trump, who is under obligation to the Jewish lobby, which had funded his election campaign, had been drawn into the war. The Epstein files issue may have pushed Trump across the threshold. Iran’s response was calculated and appropriate. Trump says he will obliterate the Iranian civilisation in one night but soon agrees to have negotiations with Iran, in Islamabad.

However, Netanyahu cannot afford an end to the war he started to save his own skin. He goes ahead and drops 100 bombs in 10 minutes on Lebanon, killing 254 civilians, including children. The massacre in Lebanon continues with Israel pushing towards the Litani river in an attempt to annex southern Lebanon. Israel disqualifies itself not only as a reliable ally but also as an honourable member of the world community by having leaders of the calibre of Netanyahu. Israel is fast becoming internationally isolated, according to experts like Professors Robert Pape, John Measheimier, Richard Wolff, Jeffrey Sachs and Yanis Varonfakis. And these experts are of the view that if Israel continues its aggressive approach and expansionist policy, disregarding the historical facts of its origin and the Palestine problem, it will implode and destroy itself.

Israel must face the reality that Iran has emerged stronger after the war and may have control over the Strait of Hormuz and may even force the US out of the region. Israel, under Netanyahu, may not be willing to acknowledge these facts, but the people in the US must realise that it is not in their national interests to have Israel as an indispensable ally. This war is very unpopular in the US not entirely due to the economic impact but the extremely atrocious way it has been prosecuted by Israel and also the equally horrendous threats made by the US against Iran. It is also very unpopular among the US allies who bluntly refused to join or even approve it. Australia, Japan and South Korea, though far removed from the theatre of war, seem to be pretty angry about the whole thing, as they are badly affected by the economic impact of the war. They may be concerned about the brutality of Israel, and the degree of support and approval it gets from the US.

Those who have significantly gained from the war may be Russia who could have a windfall on their oil sales, and China who could quietly weave its diplomatic network throughout the Middle East and watch the decline of US influence in the region. Saudi Arabia and UAE, two countries bombed by Iran, have already started a dialogue with Iran. These developments may hasten the emergence of the new world order, spearheaded by China.

The war, that was started by Netanyahu, with a willing Trump, seems to have backfired on them, with both facing a hostile world and a fast changing geopolitical global situation. Trump’s MAGA project was aimed at quelling the growth of the new world order that had China and Russia at the head. He attempted to hit Russia with sanctions but failed. He tried to curb China with tariffs but failed. Denying oil supplies to China was attempted by kidnapping the Venezuelan President. China’s monopoly on rare earth minerals was a headache to Trump and he proposes to annex Canada and Greenland which have rich deposits of these elements. War on Iran was another opportunity to do a regime change and get control over that country and its oil. He threatened to wipe out Iran saying that “the civilization would die tomorrow night”, only a psychopathic megalomaniac could make such utterances , not a president of the US. Fortunately, the changing world order would not allow Trump to achieve any of his crazy goals.

Netanyahu inadvertently may have hastened his own downfall by starting a war without realising that the global geopolitics have changed and he cannot have his way even with the full backing of Trump. Both Israel and the US need a regime change if the world is to have peace.

by N. A. de S. Amaratunga