Over the past couple of days, since Israeli forces struck Tehran, more than a few people have approached me with the same question or declaration: “World War III is starting.”

It’s not hard to see why. When one country launches a direct, conventional military attack on another, especially in a volatile region, it jolts even the most passive observer. Historically, actions like these are ominous. They often precede a broader, bloodier chapter. But does what happened on Thursday, June 12, between two long-hostile nations signal a global conflagration?

Let’s take a breath. Yes, always be prepared for the worst—but no, this likely isn’t the start of World War III. Here’s why.

First, let’s look at who got hit: Iran. According to politically neutral analysts, Iran’s military capabilities are weaker today than they were just a few years ago. Sure, they have missiles and drones—but they’re neither as sophisticated nor as effective as those used by Israel or, especially, the United States.

Take last year’s drone attack on Israel, for instance. As the drones approached Israeli airspace, they were intercepted and shot down—many with the help of Jordan—before reaching their targets. A later missile strike didn’t fare much better.

If Iran were to launch a full-scale conventional war against Israel, it would be like bringing a bat to a gunfight—where the other side is packing a Gatling gun. You can guess who has what.

Then there’s Iran’s internal landscape. The regime is less concerned with foreign military conquest than with its survival. Crippled by decades of sanctions and a deteriorating economy, the Iranian government’s domestic support is shaky at best.

As analysts suggest, Iran’s top priority is to stay in power. A full-scale war—especially one that provokes devastating retaliation from Israel—risks triggering public unrest or even revolution. This government simply cannot afford to gamble with what little legitimacy it has left.

Israel, meanwhile, is operating from a stronger base. Its government is stable and has widespread public support. But its military limitations are real. Yes, Israel can hit Iranian targets—but completely neutralizing Iran’s nuclear program would require firepower that only one country possesses: the United States.

Despite popular belief and a slick PR machine, Israel doesn’t crack the top 10 of Global Firepower’s military rankings. It sits at #15—ironically, just one notch above Iran.

In other words, countries that are not necessarily powerful enough to induce a world-war level conflict on their own.

So far, the Israeli strikes have been measured. Some analysts speculate that support and Close command facilities within Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which may include administrative or computer centers, were struck, though no major outlet has confirmed this directly. If Israel wanted to flatten parts of Tehran, though, it could. But it didn’t.

Interestingly, multiple sources—including Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, and Axios—have reported that a deliberate misinformation campaign may have preceded Israel’s strikes. According to these reports, Israeli and U.S. officials conveyed a public image of ongoing diplomacy, while privately preparing the attack. The goal? To give Iran a false sense of security and preserve operational surprise.

Officials even cited details like Netanyahu’s public vacation and carefully crafted diplomatic headlines as part of a coordinated deception effort. While this tactic may have worked tactically, it does raise concerns about transparency and escalation risk.

One more point about Iran: its proxy network—in Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen—has taken a beating in recent years. As Reuters notes, Iran’s regional network—the so-called “Axis of Resistance — has significantly eroded,” with weakened proxies that include Syria after targeted Israeli and rebel-backed setbacks.

So, even if Iran wanted to escalate, its capacity to mobilize regional allies or rally the broader Muslim world is severely diminished.

Does any of this mean, therefore, we’re sliding into World War III? Not really.

What we’ve seen so far doesn’t suggest a wider conflict. It seems more like Israel drawing a line: if Iran truly has 90% enriched uranium, it will act, not just talk.

(They did it before, in 1981, except the country attacked at that time was Iraq, not Iran. And World War III didn’t happen, then…just food for the readers thought).

Even if Iran were to fire back at Tel Aviv, the impact would likely be limited, giving Israel further cover to press its operations in Gaza with greater force.

In short, we’re not there yet. A world war requires more than regional tit-for-tat. It needs global players, broad alliances, and cascading conflict zones. So far, none of that’s materialized.

Let’s hope it stays that way.

---

Politics Hawaii with Stan Fichtman is a recipient of a 2023 Hawaii Society of Professional Journalist award. This year, the publication is once again nominated for recognition. Awards will be announced on July 30, 2025.

This blog usually saves introspection for the end of the year, or when we get something wrong and need to make a correction.

But occasionally, there’s a chance to pause for good news. This is one of those times.

Three recent developments—two recognitions and one digital comeback—give Politics Hawaii a reason to reflect and celebrate.

Three different developments have come about that this blog would like to share with its readers. Two of them are recognizing it for things published or how they are received, and one is about how this publisher was able to resurrect a Facebook site dedicated to promoting this blog.

Let’s go to the recognition stuff first.

First, an unexpected nod from FeedSpot, an online aggregator that curates political news. On Memorial Day, I received an email from its founder, Anuj Agarwal:

“I would like to personally congratulate you as your blog Politics Hawaii has been selected by our panelist as one of the Top 10 Hawaii Politics Blogs on the web. This is the most comprehensive list of its kind, and I’m honored to have you as part of this!”

For a growing independent publication, it’s notable. FeedSpot pulls content from local heavyweights like the Star-Advertiser, Civil Beat, and fellow blogger Ian Lind—so being in that mix feels significant.

They even created a badge we’ll be proudly displaying on the site.

For this blog, this is a big deal. FeedSpot has been a growing aggregator in the world of online publishing and highlighting independent publications. Another one that is doing this is All Hawaii News, which also links articles that are written on the website to theirs. I noted that FeedSpot was mentioned by Julian Vasquez in his resume, who was one of two candidates for President of the University of Hawaii.

And when you get mentioned at that level, that is when it goes from novelty to “kinda a big deal”.

Second, Politics Hawaii has submitted six nominations for journalism awards this year. These include individual articles, a series on the October 2024 shutdown of SMS Research and Marketing (submitted for the A-Mark Prize for Investigative Journalism), and even some of our headline work.

It’s the second year we’ve entered, and last year we were honored with first place for Best 1-Person Features Blog / 1-Person Online Features Site (2023).

This year’s winners will be announced on July 30—stay tuned.

Lastly, some good news on the social media front.

Back in 2019, Politics Hawaii launched a dedicated Facebook page to separate blog content from my feed. It was a space to share blog posts and other relevant stories that shape local politics.

That worked well—until April 5, my birthday. A hiccup in my Facebook account led to the Politics Hawaii page disappearing. I assumed it was lost.

But on May 30, while poking around my account, I found a way to bring it back—with all its content intact.

So here’s a shameless plug: check out the newly revived Politics Hawaii Facebook page, like and follow it, and stay current on Hawaii political developments.

Moments like these remind me why this blog exists—to contribute thoughtfully to Hawaii’s political conversation and connect with readers who care about what’s happening in our state. Thanks for sticking with Politics Hawaii, and here’s to what comes next.

Over the past few weeks, there has been a growing debate nationally about statements from the Trump Presidential Administration about the potential suspension of a rule called “habeas corpus”.

The origination of this current discussion came when, on May 9, White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Mr. Stephen Miller, stated that the Trump administration was “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus to expedite the deportation of undocumented migrants.

For many following the news, both broadcast and print reports have made clear that this is widely seen as a very bad idea. According to Miller and the administration, they believe the influx of undocumented migrants qualifies as an “invasion.” Based on that, they argue the president can suspend habeas corpus for this group.

To get why this is such a big deal, though, it helps to look at where habeas corpus comes from. This isn’t just legal jargon—it’s a centuries-old check on government power, built to make sure people can’t just be locked up without a good reason.

The idea of habeas corpus—Latin for “you shall have the body”—goes back to English common law. It was meant to stop kings from tossing people in prison just because they felt like it. The rule says: if the government detains you, they have to explain why in front of a judge. No reason? You go free. Over time, it became one of the cornerstones of individual rights, eventually written into the U.S. Constitution.

And because it’s such a cornerstone, the invocation of suspending the rule has been rare and, when invoked, imposed quite judiciously. It is such an important decision that habeas corpus has only been suspended less than a single handful of times in the 249 years the United States has existed.

One of the first suspensions of habeas corpus came during the Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln pulled the trigger on it in 1861 to deal with Confederate sympathizers in border states—basically saying the Union couldn’t afford the luxury of due process while fighting to survive.

The last time habeas corpus was suspended in the U.S. directly connects to the place this blogger—and many others—call home: Hawaiʻi .

After Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese Navy attacked the naval base at Pearl Harbor, things in Hawaiʻi got real fast. The military took over under martial law, shut down the civilian courts, and replaced them with military tribunals. Rights? Pretty much put on pause in the name of national security (sound familiar?). At first, people went along with it—it was wartime, after all. But when things settled down and the courts came back online, the whole setup didn’t hold up. In Duncan v. Kahanamoku, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Bottom line: even in crisis, there are limits.

And since then, while other presidents have tried to suggest suspending habeas corpus in times of crisis, such as events happening after the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, the idea of actual suspension wasn’t seen as serious.

At least, until now.

With the Trump administration, they are of the mindset that there is, indeed, an invasion by a foreign force on the United States through the border crossing of thousands of migrants without any immigration processing. They have, in turn, defined the invasion clause to include this, and therefore think they can invoke a suspension.

Except there is one little flaw in what the current administration would like to impose to what the rule of law says. That being the lack of a declaration of war by Congress, which would give the power of suspension to the President, as Franklin Roosevelt did after Congress declared war against Japan on December 8, 1941.

One way around this is for the administration to ask congressional allies, like Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, to formally declare war on illegal immigration. But that, too, is a bad idea.

Squashing this idea further, this blogger suspects that even Johnson and Thune see it as a non-starter. Because even with a declaration of war and the theoretical power to suspend the rule of law for swift arrests, there are limits. Hawaiʻi’s case shows us that if the Trump administration ever pulls the trigger on such a suspension, the courts will quickly step in to assess its constitutionality.

And beyond that, Congress can’t even pass a basic budget right now, so the odds of them declaring war on immigration? Slim to none. But that’s a subject for another time.

In the end, while the rhetoric around immigration may be escalating, the law and history remind us that guardrails still exist. And for now, the last time habeas corpus was suspended in the United States was in Hawaiʻi, during World War II.

---

Politics Hawaii with Stan Fichtman is a recipient of a 2023 Hawaii Society of Professional Journalist award. This year, the publication is once again nominated for recognition. Awards will be announced on July 30, 2025.

Edit