War of Choice, Board of Peace (February 20, 2026)

Welcome to Home & Away. As this week’s title suggests, matters of war and peace are garnering a good deal of attention despite the arrest of a man in the United Kingdom formerly known as Prince.

Once More Unto the Breach

Significant U.S. military forces are being gathered in Iran’s zip code. For what purpose remains unclear. So far, there is little evidence to suggest the surge of firepower to the Middle East is persuading Iran to give up what remains of its not-quite-obliterated nuclear program.

So, if coercion fails, what then? Israel is keen that it and/or the United States attack Iran’s cache of ballistic missiles. The risk is that Iran would retaliate, be it against U.S. military forces in the region, Israel, shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, or oil facilities across the Middle East. If it did, the price of oil, which is up 10 percent in the last week but still below what it was a year ago, could spike. I imagine this is not something this president wants to see, especially as affordability remains a top concern for Americans and the midterms are just nine months away. He also wants, for political reasons (and should want for strategic reasons), to avoid a long war, something Iran might be better at weathering than the United States. Would we then be prepared to back down and accept the sort of deal limiting Iran’s nuclear program that we now find unacceptable? That would be a costly humiliation.

Also unclear is what impact a conflict of whatever duration and scope would have on the Iranian regime’s hold on power. It could just as easily strengthen it as weaken it. And it is impossible to know what would succeed this regime if it were to fall. All this makes me uneasy, as I don’t yet see a clear connection between means and ends in U.S. policy (a theme in this presidency).

The case for using military force is weak; as I have argued here and elsewhere, far more promising would be a U.S. policy that increased economic pressure on the regime to either bring about a fundamental change in its foreign policy and/or to spur defections in its ranks so as to make regime change a real possibility.

Let me add one more point. Nothing has emerged recently in the way of a new threat to U.S. interests posed by Iran that necessitates a military response. The only thing that is new is the outbreak of anti-regime protests in late December and the brutal response by the regime. The Trump administration encouraged the protesters only to leave them to their fate. All of which is to ask, “Why now?” and “Why with the military?” These questions are relevant as it is far from clear that what is being contemplated will help the Iranian people.

Missing, in addition to any public explanation of U.S. strategy, is any evidence of congressional oversight. Similarly, there is hardly any public debate about the wisdom of the course the president may be embarking upon. What we have instead is a president who seems to think that the success of the limited intervention in Venezuela gives him license to do what he wants to do elsewhere, along with the confidence that the U.S. will succeed. There is always that chance, but everyone should understand that what is being contemplated vis-à-vis Iran would be a war of choice in a part of the world where recent wars of choice, including the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libya intervention, proved disastrous. It all adds up to an enormous, unnecessary, and ill-advised risk.

Coalition of the Shilling

The Board of Peace had its inaugural meeting Thursday in Washington at the DOGE-gutted U.S. Institute of Peace, now the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace. The new Board is off to a less than auspicious start, as America’s principal European and Asian allies, along with China and India, are conspicuously absent. That Putin’s Russia has been invited to participate in anything associated with peace makes a mockery of the undertaking. Nor does it help that, thus far, the Board is failing in its initial task of bringing peace to (and rebuilding) Gaza. Trump announced a $10 billion commitment to this end, though it is unclear where that money would come from as Congress has not authorized or appropriated it. If the Board of Peace were a stock, I would short it.

Unhappy Anniversary

Speaking of war and peace, there is much to say about Ukraine, as it is arguably the most significant geopolitical issue in play but has been pushed to the sidelines when it comes to people’s attention given all that is going on, from Venezuela and Greenland to Epstein and Iran.

There is another reason to write about Ukraine this week. We are about to mark the end of the fourth and the start of the fifth year of the second phase of Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression. The first phase, as you will recall, began in 2014 when Russia took Crimea and started a war in the eastern Donbas region. It was a war with limited aims that was met with an even more limited response by Ukraine, Europe, and the United States.

The second phase of the war began in February 2022, and it was decidedly unlimited in its aims. Putin broadcasted his expansive goals in an essay published the summer before. His “special military operation” sought and expected to bring about an end to Ukraine’s independent status, or, in Putin’s own convoluted words, the “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine.

But Putin was wrong about four things. He underestimated Ukraine’s resolve and capacity to resist. He underestimated European willingness to support Ukraine. He also thought the United States, which had just ignominiously ended its two-decade-long involvement in Afghanistan, would stand aside. But here again, he was wrong. And he grossly overestimated the abilities of his own military.

Four years and two million casualties later, little has changed in terms of territorial control. Ukraine still holds approximately 80 percent of its territory, while Russia effectively controls 20 percent. Russia has increasingly turned to bombing civilian targets in Ukraine, above all energy installations, to increase misery and sap the country’s will to resist.

U.S. policy has been all over the place during these four years. The Biden administration deserves credit for providing significant arms and intelligence to Ukraine. Yes, it could and arguably should have provided more advanced arms sooner, but even so it is far from clear that this would have materially changed the course of events. The Biden administration also unwisely refrained from promoting a ceasefire on achievable terms, something that would have appropriately reflected that Ukraine could not liberate Russian-occupied lands by armed force. Still, Biden’s willingness to provide Ukraine with the means to defend itself makes his administration look better than either the Obama or Trump administrations on this issue.

President Trump gets some points for speaking truth to power in Kyiv and for seeking peace. Where Trump and his envoys deserve the strongest criticism, though, is for curtailing U.S. support for Ukraine, for failing to do more to increase the costs to Russia, and for pushing a variety of peace plans that would reward Russian aggression and leave Ukraine dependent on security assurances that are anything but iron-clad. Once again, we are left wondering what accounts for the persistent pro-Russian bias of this administration.

Munich

Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not speak about Ukraine in his speech at the 2026 Munich Security Conference, although he did address it when he took a question. His relatively balanced answer was at odds with his administration’s policy that, as discussed above, is anything but balanced.

Overall, Rubio’s speech was impressive in content and delivery. He will be a formidable candidate in 2028 if he decides to run. Those in the hall reacted favorably, in no small part because they found it incomparably more reassuring than the attack delivered a year before by J.D. Vance, one that warned of Europe’s “civilizational erasure” and the “threat from within.”

But I wouldn’t exaggerate what Rubio’s talk accomplished. He avoided Ukraine, tariffs, and Greenland. He did not talk about China, which as he knows full well remains this country’s most formidable long-term rival. He did not reassure Europeans on climate change or democracy. Nothing he said, or could say, restored confidence that the United States would reliably meet its Article 5 commitment to come to the defense of other NATO members.

The report the Munich Security Conference issued as a backdrop to this year’s gathering is revealing. It was titled “Under Destruction.” A few lines capture its core message: “The world has entered a period of wrecking ball politics…More than 80 years after construction began, the U.S.-led post-1945 international order is now under destruction…The most powerful of those who take the axe to existing rules and institutions is U.S. President Donald Trump.” That Rubio left Munich to embrace Hungary’s illiberal Prime Minister Viktor Orban only served to reinforce this perception.

PDRNYC: An Update

The snow has mostly melted and even a good deal of the garbage that had accumulated on sidewalks and streets has been picked up, but the latest news from the People’s Democratic Republic of New York City is not reassuring. Mayor Zohran Mamdani has threatened to raise property taxes if he cannot persuade Governor Kathy Hochul to institute a surtax on those earning $1 million or more. The new mayor is coming off as a textbook tax and spend politician, something that is bad for the city and bad for the Democrats.

The good news is that Mamdani is probably not in a position to increase taxes. The governor will block income tax hikes and the City Council is unlikely to support property tax increases. But why even go down this path? Read the argument put forward by the Citizen’s Budget Commission (CBC) in its February 12 letter to the mayor:

“New York City’s fiscal challenges are largely the result of excessive spending growth rather than insufficient revenues. Addressing this dynamic through operational improvement offers an opportunity to strengthen the City’s finances without undermining its competitiveness or placing additional burdens on residents and businesses.”

New York City does not lack for revenues, which have increased markedly over the past decade. Again, I quote from the CBC’s letter: “Despite strong revenues, the City spent $2.3 billion more than it received over the past three years. Over the last decade, spending growth has consistently outpaced inflation, adding layers of programs without sufficient discipline to sunset or redesign those that are not delivering results. Had spending merely kept pace with inflation, the City would be spending roughly $15 billion less today.” In short, the sooner the new mayor moves from campaigning to governing, the better.

The Sporting Life

It was a big week at the Olympics. The come-from-behind victory by the American women’s hockey team was thrilling; Alysa Liu’s gold medal performance in women’s figure skating (and the story behind it) was truly inspiring. I was glad, too, to see The New York Times run a story describing the biathlon as the sleeper hit of the Olympic games. I am not alone in my secret pleasure.

But my favorite Olympics story (even more than allegations of cheating in the curling competition) was the report that the host country’s (Italy) supply of free condoms for the athletes had run out, owing to “higher-than-anticipated demand.” Call me madcap, but I would have thought the demand totally anticipatable (or anticipable if you prefer). All of which leads me to think we can expect a batch of future Olympians to emerge in nine months.

Off the snow and ice, two stories stood out. There was a pickleball brawl involving some twenty people in Florida apparently triggered by some disagreement over an alleged rules infraction. The police had to be called in. Several folks were arrested and, in addition, were banned from the country club for life. My principal takeaway is that gated communities are clearly not designed to contend with crime from within.

More positively, I was glad to see that Anthony Kim won the LIV golf tournament in Adelaide, decisively defeating a field that included at least two of the LIV tour’s biggest names, Jon Rahm and Bryson DeChambeau. What makes it all a good news story is that Kim (once considered a can’t miss potential star) has been mostly absent from competitive golf since 2012, after an injury was followed by a prolonged battle with various addictions and mental health challenges. He joined LIV close to two years ago and seems to have put both his golf game and his life back together, which makes for a happy ending for him and this week’s newsletter alike.

As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.

---

Richard Haass in the news

Tuesday, February 17: Alternate Shots Episode 17.

Wednesday, February 18: Katie Couric on Iran.

Thursday, February 19: Squawk on the Street on Iran, Board of Peace.