What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

by Mark Van Proyen

March 28, 2026

Oakland, California

Faith Ringgold, “Freedom the Grow (from the Story Quilt tradition),” c. 1990s, acrylic on canvas with fabric border (quilt), 72 x 72”.

On February 23, the USS Gerald Ford made an unscheduled stop at Souda Bay on the island of Crete while on its way to rendezvous with a strike force in the eastern Mediterranean. The Ford, the most advanced aircraft carrier in the US Navy and the world, was previously deployed in the operation to support the “exfiltration” (read: kidnapping) of Nicholás Maduro in Venezuela. It can launch up to 75 advanced aircraft, while its support vessels include several guided missile destroyers capable of firing long-range Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

It was reported that the reason for the stop was to repair a problem with the ship’s plumbing system that caused its 4,500 crew members to wait in long lines before relieving themselves. One report claimed that the cause of the plumbing problem was sailors flushing undergarments into the ship’s toilets to undermine or delay what would be called Operation Epic Fury, scheduled to commence a few days later. At its outset Israeli and American military assets attacked over a thousand targets in Iran, killing supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other members of his inner circle. But make no mistake: the theocratic government in Iran has a number of deep layers of succession, meaning that its system is resilient to such decapitation.

“What could possibly go wrong?” The Ford’s plumbing incident represents one of hundreds of potential answers to that question, reminding us of the many things that went awry in similar operations conducted against Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan during the past three decades. But, even more than those previous misadventures there was no time to think it through because the hasty timing of the operation had to work on a very tight schedule. President Trump gave his State of the Union address on February 24, making scant mention of any plans to attack Iran.

Alan Sekula, “Panorama. Mid-Atlantic, November 1993” from “Fish Story,” 1989-95, chromogenic color print, dimensions variable (installation format).

Poll numbers currently project that his party will lose at least two dozen seats in the House of Representatives and two seats or more in the Senate (a four seat switch would give Democrats majorities in both houses) in November’s mid-term elections, tying Trump’s hands for the remaining two years of his Presidency unless he can convince the country to rally around him as a wartime president. The initiation of hostilities that took place on February 28 fits that timeline perfectly, corresponding with the Jewish holiday of Purim while also taking place near the beginning of Ramadan to add insult to injury. To this add the distraction from the ever-worsening Epstein files controversy, which is still peeling away a steady stream of the president’s rank-and-file Republican supporters.

Certainly, the situation in Iran had grown dire in January, with the unpopular government’s mass killing of dissident protestors by the tens of thousands. Estimates about the exact number of those murders vary widely, running from 20,000 to 50,000, with a government-imposed internet blackout accounting for the discrepancy. But Iran posed no imminent threat to the American homeland. Negotiations about Iran’s future nuclear capability were proceeding apace, with progress being reported by both sides, which might be one of the underlying reasons for the attack. Think back to the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration (the JCPOA) and ratified by the Senate in 2015. It was subsequently torn up by the Trump administration in 2018. Would a new nuclear deal be equally unacceptable to an already nuclear-armed Israel? And even if so, why should American foreign policy be beholden to that position at the risk of a wider regional war and major disruption of international petroleum commerce?

Laura Aguilar, “Grounded # 114” from the “Grounded” series, 2006, inkjet print, 22 x 17”. Courtesy © Laura Aguilar Trust of 2016.

Make no mistake: immanent threat is the key criterion for any presidential use of military force undertaken without Congressional approval, one of three enumerated by the 1973 War Powers Act. The other two require 48 hours notification to Congress after undertaking hostilities, and a limit of 60-90 days should any conflict last that long. In 1973, President Nixon vetoed that legislation, only to have his veto overruled by an overwhelming vote in Congress. To go beyond the parameters of that act would and should be an impeachable offense, if the quislings in Congress had any regard for their Constitutional oaths, which they clearly do not. This even holds true for some Democrats. In the Senate vote that took place on March 4, John Fetterman (D-PA) sided with the Republican majority to endorse the attacks, while Rand Paul (R-KY) voted with the minority. On March 5, the House of Representatives voted 219 to 212 to endorse the attacks six days after the fact.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio spilled the tea on March 2. Addressing questions from the press, he stated that the rationale for the American attack was that we “knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, and we anticipated that Iran would retaliate against U.S. forces in the Gulf, and therefore we hit first to reduce American casualties.” Note the fuzzy logic of Rubio’s declaration. The next day, President Trump made a mealy-mouthed claim that it was he who convinced Israeli leadership to join the campaign, no doubt after some late-night telephone communication with Benjamin Netanyahu about dogs and the tails that wag them. Soon after that, it was revealed that it was Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff who had an evidence-free intuition that Iran was two weeks away from launching a nuclear attack on Israel — this after Iran’s nascent nuclear capabilities had been “obliterated” by last June’s Operation Midnight Hammer.

Newton Harrison and Helen Mayer Harrison, “Fourth Lagoon, On Mapping, Mixing, and Territory.” Courtesy of the Harrison Family Trust.

As always, we need to look at who benefits at whose expense. The first beneficiary will be the defense contractors who will make generous profits by replacing the armament stockpiles expended in the conflict. The second beneficiary will be the financial institutions who will gain from the debt incurred by the conflict, yet another case of public money going into private hands. Because the conflict has already spiked oil prices (as of publication it is running in the $110 range in a volatile market, up from about $60 at the start of the year) you can bet that the so-called energy sector will benefit, not from any direct government subsidy, but from rising fuel costs that have already been showing up at the gas pump, adding additional inflationary pressure to tariff-strapped consumers.

Will the Trump administration benefit politically? If the conflict goes well, yes, although not enough to change its imploding poll numbers before the upcoming mid-term elections. If the conflict becomes a long-term quagmire like other recent Middle East military adventures, you can stick a fork into Trump’s global grift club, because it will be done. The fact that Trump is willing to gamble everything on the outcome of Operation Epic Fury indicates just how desperate he is, or how confident about nullifying the results of the mid-term elections in November. This latter point should be concerning, to say the least. The legislative battle over Trump’s Save America Act is worth watching, because it is a poorly disguised voter suppression bill intended to disenfranchise a large portion of the electorate who would be disinclined to support Trump. It also rests on shaky Constitutional grounds, as Article 1, Section 4 gives States the authority over the administrations of elections. If the so-called Save America Act fails congressional passage, the prospect of the Trump administration executing a pre-election false flag operation should not be dismissed.

Harun Farocki, “Serious Games 1, Watson Is Down,” 2010, still from two-channel video, color, 8 minutes. Courtesy of Artforum, artforum.com.

And so, a return to our initial consideration about what might go wrong. For example, what if China were to provide weapons to the Iranians? The Iranians have already used Chinese-made hypersonic cruise missiles to devastating effect on Israel and other Gulf States. Could medium range ballistic missiles be far behind? In the short term, the People’s Republic (PRC) benefits no matter which way the conflict goes, especially since China-flagged oil tankers are allowed to pass through the same Strait of Hormuz that has been blockaded by Iran to all other commercial traffic. Prior to that closure, Chinese oil tankers were already the largest plurality of maritime visitors traveling to and from the Gulf, inviting speculation about what might happen if the U.S. chose to blockade their passage. Would China use that as an opportunity to attack Taiwan? Given that 35 percent of U.S. Naval strike capabilities are in or near the Persian Gulf, close attention needs to be focused on the Taiwan situation, especially since Taiwanese petroleum reserves are running dangerously low because of the blockade. The same holds true for Japan and South Korea. In Korea, American air defense missile systems are being disassembled for transport to the Persian Gulf, creating a dangerous vulnerability.  U.S. strategic petroleum reserves are also running low, but Canadian production and oil stolen from Venezuela mitigates the risk of all-out fuel shortages. Because pump prices run about 5 weeks behind barrel spot prices, don’t be surprised if you see seven dollar-a-gallon gas by July 4th. The economic chain-reaction stemming from this will not be a good one.

Walid Raad, “My Neck is thinner than a hair: Engines,” 1996-2001, one of 100 inkjet prints, 9 7/16 x 13 3/8”. Courtesy of the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), New York.

Russia, however, is the major beneficiary of Operation Epic Fury. The precipitous spike in oil prices puts a lot of money into Russia’s coffers, and Trump’s easing of sanctions on Russian oil makes it possible for India and other countries to purchase their energy needs from Vladimir Putin at a significant mark-up. Europe will soon have no choice but to follow suit. On March 6th it was reported that Russia has been providing targeting information about U.S. Mid-East deployments to the Iranians, adding additional risk to US military personnel. Trump’s foreign policy team has been suspiciously mute about this embarrassing fly in the geopolitical ointment.

Another factor worth considering is what China could do with the $684 billion of U.S. Treasury bonds that it currently holds, down from the peak 1.4 trillion that it held in 2013, but still a relatively significant portion of the $35 trillion public debt that we carry, amounting to $230,000 per household. If China dumped its Treasury Bond holdings, significant economic stress could result, because other bond holders would very likely follow suit, especially since we are spending in excess of a billion dollars a day on this war of choice. While thinking about all of this, we should always remember that in war, truth is always the first casualty.

[Note: Images in this article are drawn from contemporary and historical works that examine war, systems, and the instability of evidence. — Ed.]

Mark Van Proyen has written commentaries emphasize the tragic consequences of blind faith placed in economies of narcissistic reward. In 2020, he retired from the faculty of the San Francisco Art Institute, where he taught Painting and Art History. From 2003 to 2018, he was a corresponding editor for Art in America. In 2025 he relaunched Square Cylinder with Bill Lasarow and DeWitt Cheng.

Photo credit: Mary Ijichi