CONGRATULATIONS, Donald. You have your war! Ukraine was Biden’s; Obama shared Iraq and Afghanistan, with Bush Jr. who started them. Clinton had his Kosovo and the Bosnian wars; Bush the dad has his Gulf wars, Desert Shield and Desert Storm; Reagan had his invasion of Grenada; Johnson had his invasion of the Dominican Republic; and had to share with Nixon and Kennedy for one of the longest — the Vietnam War where the pajama-clad nuoc mam-cum-rice-eating combatants of Ho Chi Minh beat the hell out of the MRE-fed American grunts.

Warmongest country

This litany of America’s wars is not simply “tongue and cheek” metaphors. A brief history of the world’s most warmongering nation validates this assertion and may help us situate the current conflicts. This column will not discuss America’s internal wars and conflicts from the American Revolution in 1715-1783 through the two world wars of 1917 and 1941.

Back then, nuclear weapons were not in play except for an instance that wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But today, there are nine countries with a combined total of 12,100 nuclear warheads that can obliterate the planet several times over.

America loves wars. It is in its DNA. And it’s good for business. President Eisenhower first warned the world of the military-industrial complex (MIC), this symbiotic relationship between the US government and the defense industry that leads “to unwarranted influence on US foreign policy jeopardizing peace and democracy.”

In the 80 years since World War II, America never won a single major war — Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But winning or losing are of no real consequence. The US economy and prosperity to a large extent were propelled by wars. America is the world’s No. 1 arms dealer, exporting 43 percent of the world’s weapons.

Israel-Iran war

But the relevant wars that directly impact the Israel-Iran conflict today is contained in what Jeffrey Sachs, the noted political scientist, revealed in a political document post-911 called “Clean Break” which advances that Israel need not fight militants supporting the Palestinians against Israel head-on — al-Qaida, IS, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Just bring down the governments that support them in a “regime change.” Thus, the wars the US was involved in in the last 30 years were on behalf of Netanyahu to overthrow Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and now Iran.

Netanyahu always had a hard-on embroiling America in a war with Iran. Jeffrey Sachs has written that since 1996, “Netanyahu’s greatest dream was to go to war with Iran and pull the United States into this war... his philosophy and approach is to dominate the Middle East, use Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the region to bludgeon, kill, assassinate and overthrow any government that opposes Israel’s actions... the end purpose of all of this seems to allow Israel to define its own borders in any way that it chooses as expansively as it chooses... and the complete control over the territory of British mandatory Palestine meaning that Israel would have full control over Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem...” (“US prepares to join war against Iran,” Jeffrey Sachs, YouTube, June 16, 2025).

The Donald is putty in the hands of Bibi and the US Congress is virtually under the control of the Zionist Christian and Jewish Israeli lobby. What better way to achieve the above scenario than to replicate Bush Jr.’s raison d’etre for invading Iraq in 2003 — destroying Sadam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — which turned out to be a dud. The same playbook is being used by these two madmen.

Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s own director of national intelligence, back in March testified before Congress that America has conclusive evidence that Iran is not building nuclear bombs and have no ambitions of going nuclear; contradicting Netanyahu who has been doing the same song and dance number since 1996 that “Iran is only weeks away from developing nuclear weapons updating this message in 2001, 2002, 2006.” And the unthinking US president went along “I will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.”

True or not, Iran’s possessing nuclear weapons may play eerily well into new geopolitical perspectives. Some argue that Iran’s nuclear capabilities could truly become a deterrent to persistent wars in the Middle East by providing another level of mutual terror preventing a temptation toward shattering the mutually assured destruction (MAD) syndrome. North Korea’s case has been cited; North Korea’s possessing nuclear capability has reduced Trump to just rhetorical invasion. In contrast to Libya’s castration and Ghadaffi’s assassination after surrendering its prerogative to developing nuclear capabilities.

Then again, with the cognitively impaired authoritarian Trump who claims to know better than all his intelligence professionals and unable to think all implications through, nonchalantly decides America’s and the world’s fate by siding with Netanyahu’s proclivities. Living up to his new moniker — Trump the TACO — he backtracked a little, giving Iran two weeks to negotiate a deal. But not for long.

Anti-war president

Running as the anti-war president in 2016, the Donald announced that he would not lead the US into any wars. He will keep America and the world safe from World War III. Upon assuming office, he proceeded to shred unilaterally the Iran nuclear deal, negotiated by President Obama under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran immediately resumed its nuclear program, planting the seeds for this current conflict.

Friday the 13th, an ominous day, Israel attacked Iran. Trump lied about America’s involvement. But believing Israel was succeeding in Iran’s devastation, Trump changed his tune, from non-involvement to “...we are in control and dominating the skies over Iran...” — grabbing the credit. With that, he casually brought America into this conflict. Adding to his rantings, a hint of an assassination: “We know exactly where the so-called supreme leader (Khamenei) is hiding, he is an easy target but is safe there, we are not going to take him out and kill him, at least not for now.”

A continuing tragedy

Except for Trump being played by Netanyahu and America’s hatred for Iran dating back to US President Carter’s presidency when the American puppet Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was deposed during the Iranian revolution and subsequent ascendancy of Ayatollah Khomeini; there are no clear goals for America’s evolving support for Israel. As the noted American political scientist John Mearsheimer asks, “Does Netanyahu and Trump have a theory of victory?” It seems that Israel’s “...objective was to get the United States involved from the outset... and that (Israel’s) goal was not to win by themselves but to bring about a war between the United States and Iran because without such a war how can Israel win?”

While this was being written, Trump directed American warplanes to deploy its “bunker buster bombs” on the Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear facilities. “Israel can’t destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facility,” Trump declared. So, he did it himself.

The US Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. Attacking Iran unprovoked is an act of war. Trump, the only sitting American president already convicted of 34 counts of felony, just committed another crime.

Netanyahu must be jumping with glee!

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Centrist View: Back to Basics

In an era marked by deepening social divides, persistent inequality, and political uncertainty, the Philippines stands at a critical juncture in its national life. Competing ideologies vie for dominance, often pulling the nation toward extremes. Amid this turbulence, a centrist perspective — rooted in the principles of human dignity and human rights — offers a balanced and principled framework for rebuilding trust, safeguarding citizens, and renewing democratic life.

Human Dignity as the Foundation of Rights and Responsibilities

At the core of the centrist vision is the belief that every Filipino possesses inherent human dignity — not conferred by the state, but intrinsic to being human. This dignity forms the moral and legal foundation of all human rights: civil liberties, political participation, and access to essential services such as education, healthcare, and livelihood.

But dignity is more than an entitlement; it is also a responsibility. It calls on individuals not only to claim their own rights but also to respect and uphold the rights of others — in speech, in conduct, and in civic life. The Centrist View affirms that rights and responsibilities are inseparable, and that a just society depends on mutual recognition of each person’s worth.

Human Rights in a Divided Political Landscape

In recent years, human rights in the Philippines have become a flashpoint — celebrated by some as the bedrock of democracy, dismissed by others as a hindrance to order and discipline. The centrist approach resists this false binary.

Instead, it upholds human rights as non-negotiable, especially for the most vulnerable: victims of extrajudicial killings, displaced indigenous communities, and ordinary citizens left behind by corruption and impunity. At the same time, it recognizes the need to contextualize rights within the broader social fabric — considering public safety, poverty, and institutional capacity.

The absolute moral positions of the Church — opposition to abortion, divorce, and same-sex marriage — moral truths which many Filipinos adopt unquestioningly, conflict with human rights discourses or secular principles such as reproductive health, women’s rights, and LGBTQ inclusion. The war on drugs under the Duterte administration was often justified using absolute moral language — portraying drug use as an evil that must be eradicated at all cost. This moral framing enabled EJK and human rights abuses, with limited public resistance due to the perceived moral righteousness of the campaign.

The anti-corruption rhetoric (all corruption is evil) uses moral absolutism (that certain actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of context, consequences, or cultural norms) but the application of justice in the Philippines is frequently selective, exposing the hypocrisy and dangers of absolutism when wielded by those in power. Human rights violations during Martial Law (torture, illegal detentions, censorship) can be judged as morally wrong in absolute terms, regardless of the justifications of national security or economic progress. However, moral relativism is often used to justify or downplay these events, especially by those who benefit from historical revisionism or political dynasties.

The late dictator son’s administration has emphasized technocratic leadership — appointing economic managers, military officials, and political elites into key positions — often sidelining consultative, grassroots-driven policy-making. His seeming focus on stability and economic continuity is reflected in his cabinet choices; still this pragmatic approach is viewed as centralizing authority and downplays participative governance, especially from civil society organizations, marginalized sectors, and opposition voices.

The DepEd and CHED directives to revise or soften the language around martial law abuses reflect a systemic push toward historical revisionism, legitimizing the current administration while erasing past atrocities. In lieu of outright censorship, the present administration uses strategic communication and digital manipulation through troll farms, algorithmic manipulation, and disinformation campaigns, to promote a favorable image. Contrary opinions and criticisms are viewed as “fake news” and attempts to discredit the administration are seen as libelous that merit congressional inquiry, purportedly, in aid of legislation.

The administration exhibits a form of authoritarian pragmatism more subtle than the previous dictatorship but no less concerning in its long-term implications. The challenge for Filipinos today is to critically assess this pragmatism: who benefits, who is silenced, and at what cost is “progress” achieved.

The Centrist View rejects both moral absolutism and authoritarian pragmatism. It seeks to foster a culture in which human rights are not only enshrined in law but also respected in practice, and where governance is accountable, transparent, and humane.

Rebuilding Trust in Institutions and the Rule of Law

The erosion of public trust in the justice system and the prevalence of political patronage have undermined faith in democratic institutions. When laws are applied unequally — when the wealthy and powerful escape accountability while the poor face violence and neglect — human dignity suffers.

A centrist response calls for the revitalization of institutions as a moral imperative:

• A justice system that is impartial, efficient, and accessible to all;
• Security forces that serve the Constitution and the people, not personal or political interests;
• Governance that is participatory, transparent, and responsive — especially to marginalized communities.

Restoring confidence in institutions, in the Centrist View, is not only about efficiency; it is about affirming the dignity of every citizen and the credibility of democracy itself.

Social Justice Without Extremism

Despite economic growth, the Philippines continues to grapple with stark inequality, underdevelopment in rural areas, and persistent conflict in regions such as Mindanao. Politics is downplaying the gains of the Bangsamoro Autonomous region, as changes in policies are manifest in each subsequent administration. These are not just policy failures — they are affronts to human dignity.

The centrist approach to social justice promotes meaningful, targeted reforms:

• Long-term investments in quality education and healthcare as fundamental human rights;
• Genuine land reform and rural development to empower farmers and indigenous peoples;
• Inclusive and decentralized governance, particularly in historically marginalized regions.

Unlike radical ideologies that call for revolution or sweeping overhauls, the Centrist View advocates for gradual, evidence-based reforms that preserve national stability while addressing deep-rooted injustices.

Pluralism and Mutual Respect in a Diverse Nation

The Philippines is a nation of many cultures, faiths, and identities. Respecting human dignity means embracing this diversity, not suppressing it.

The centrist vision affirms that unity can only emerge from mutual respect — not forced conformity.

All Filipinos — regardless of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or social status — have the right to live free from discrimination and violence. Dialogue, rather than dogma, is the foundation of lasting peace and nation-building.

In this spirit, the Centrist View aligns with the universal values of human rights: that every person has the right to live, believe, speak, and participate fully in society — while also contributing to the common good.

Conclusion: A Call for Principled Moderation

The Centrist View in contemporary Philippine society is not a position of passivity or indifference. It is a call for principled moderation — an approach that seeks:

• To place human dignity at the center of policy and public life;
• To uphold human rights not as partisan slogans but as shared moral imperatives;
• To advance nation-building through inclusion, institutional reform, and civic responsibility.

In an age defined by polarization and populism, the Philippines needs a renewed commitment to moral clarity, balanced leadership, and shared humanity. In this vision, human dignity is not merely an abstract ideal — it is a living promise that belongs to every Filipino.