The Barnes Brief: Friday, March 27, 2026
Art of the Week
I. INTRODUCTION
**Alert: Amos Miller Special Dinner Fundraiser: https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/7756876/1776-law-center-fundraiser-birthday-bash-at-amos-millers
A. Art of the Week
- The artful studio, the hidden cigar room, and the secret negotiations place. The well-structured chairs, the comfortable cushions, the wood-paneled walls, the delicate lamps, the simple table, the luxuriant rug, the seafaring sailboat beckoning on the wall. The simple art of everyday aesthetics that shape mind and soul alike, the art that envelops and motivates at the same. An inviting, beckoning, hidden welcome.
B. Recommendation of the Week
- America & Iran: A History. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/49201929-america-and-iran
C. Wisdom of the Week
- “The most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war.” Desiderius Erasmus.
D. Appearances
- Interview w/ Dr. Parsi.
II. THE EVIDENCE
*NOTE: A reminder: links are NOT endorsements of the authors or their interpretation of events, but intended to expand our library of understanding as well as expose ideas of distinct perspective to our own.
A. Barnes Library: Curated Weekly Articles
- The Gallipoli example. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/veterans-iran/
- Private credit risks spread. https://substack.com/home/post/p-192317151
- Doomberg’s perspective. https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/house-of-pain
- Exit ramps. https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-end-war-iran
- Dr. Malone exits. https://thehighwire.com/watch/
*Bonus: Rescued by hanging onto a cliff. https://abc7news.com/post/live-crews-working-rescue-person-clinging-cliff-house-san-francisco/18773788/
B. Best of the Board: Five Fun Posts of the Week
- Comedic wisdom. https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/7802545/this-ones-for-you-janet-fly-the-friendly-skies
- American roulette. https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/7802590/seems-pretty-accurate-from-where-i-sit-both-parties-are-poison-they-just-have-different-ideas-on
- Light and shadow at the Lighthouse. https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/7802467/title
- Malone warns. https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/7801997/they-tried-it-s-over
- Ideas for reformers. https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/7802626/here-it-is-robertbarnes-a-highly-detailed-and-extensively-researched-list-for-1776-law-center-u
*Bonus: Art meets nature. https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/7801135/title
C. Homework: Cases of the Week for Sunday
- Free speech win. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2026/03/27/a_consent_decree_for_freedom_speech_153985.html
- Pentagon loses Anthropic block. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/gov.uscourts.cand.465515.134.0.pdf
- North Carolina voter id upheld. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/nc-voter-id-naacp-hirsch-berger.pdf
- Environmentalists lose. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/reclamation-water-contracts-ruling.pdf
- Cop negligence. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/monica-liliana-v-san-diego-ruling.pdf
- Musk loses. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/x-advertiser-boycott-lawsuit-dismissed.pdf
- Musk loses again. https://www.storyboard18.com/digital/elon-musk-challenges-twitter-fraud-verdict-flags-4-20-joke-as-jury-bias-93424.htm
- Facebook loses. https://courthousenews.com/meta-and-google-hit-with-6-million-verdict-for-social-media-harms-to-young-woman/
- Facebook loses again. https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-department-of-justice-wins-landmark-verdict-against-meta/
- SCOTUS: copyright law. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf
- SCOTUS: more immunity. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-297_bqm2.pdf
- SCOTUS: mail-in voting argument. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-1260_8njq.pdf
*Bonus: A joke lawsuit over Lion King. https://www.slashfilm.com/2133281/the-lion-king-circle-of-life-singer-comedian-learnmore-jonasi-lawsuit/
**Bonus: Google settles again. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/open-lawsuit-settlements/5m-google-play-subscription-class-action-settlement/
***Bonus; MN sues over shootings. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.290713/gov.uscourts.dcd.290713.1.0_2.pdf
D. Deep Dive: Sources on X to Follow on Iran War
- War analyst. https://x.com/pati_marins64
- Former Israeli defense intelligence. https://x.com/citrinowicz
- War & geopolitics nerd. https://x.com/policytensor
- Commodity manager. https://x.com/tleilax___
- Geopolitics from an economics perspective. https://x.com/DarioCpx?
*Bonus: War nerd. https://x.com/ripplebrain
III. CLOSING ARGUMENT: An Answer to My Critics on Iran War
- A few common complaints recur. Their most continuous error is the failure to step back and provide an effective overview. What are the rewards you seek? What is the probability the means you employ will obtain those rewards? What are the risks of using those means to obtain those rewards? What is the probability of those risks coming to fruition? This simple 4-step analysis is the very thing the critics can’t seem to meaningfully engage. Instead, the criticisms tend to conflate wishful thinking with geopolitical realism.
- For example: “Are you saying you want the Islamic regime in Iran to be the hegemon in the Middle East?” Nope. I am saying the current war is more and more likely to make them such a hegemon. This common confusion conflates wishful thinking with geopolitical realism. Recognizing a likely reality doesn’t make it a desirable reality. Wishing for a particular outcome doesn’t make it happen. This isn’t a fairytale world.
- Another: “Sounds like Barnes is moving the goal posts by labeling Iran's proxies as 'resistance movements. ' lol” It is important to use consistent, objective definitions for a label like “terrorism”, rather than the subjective whims of calling those you don’t like “terrorists” but excuse the identical conduct by those you support as something else. Terrorism has a long standing broadly understood definition: “the unlawful use of violence against civilians to intimidate societies for politicized objectives.” By that definition, Iran’s support tends to be for rebels who mostly use violence against states or other armed rivals — e.g., the Houthis, Hezbollah and the Shia Militias in Iraq. By contrast, they fought ISIS more than we did. By our own State Department, more terrorism happens by Israel and US backed groups than by Iran. Pretending otherwise makes the Iran critics look hypocritical and fraudulent. Equally, and more importantly for American security interests, it makes Iran’s government not an imminent threat to Americans in our own homeland. As is, even if it did, the war creates far more terrorists who will target America.
- A third: “I guess a 4000km range missile doesn't worry Mr. Barnes. Personally, I would prefer a non-radioactive Middle East.” Once again, what is your evidence Iran would use nuclear armed ballistic missiles against the United States when they have whenever attacked us in our homeland, ever? Even if you believed that was so, how do you think the war reduces that risk?
- This fundamental failure to test their own assumptions, filter their own arguments through an objectively verifiable standard, and their dubious sourcing relying on emotional appeals, the critics reveal their lack of quality arguments for their position.
- My take: I see the reward of a peaceful, democratic, pro-American, pro-Israel regime in Iran as highly unlikely. I see the reward of an Iran incapable of making nuclear weapons as equally unlikely. I see the reward of a docile, submissive Iran, unsupportive of Shia rebel groups and the Palestinians as equally unlikely. Indeed, I see the risk of a more hostile, more likely to get nuclear weapons, more likely to embrace true terrorism, as the more probable outcome of the war. As important, I see the risk of Democratic dominance for a half-decade as much more likely than Iran becoming the 1978 Shah’s version of Iran, due to the betrayal to anti-war voters, the economic fallout from the conflict, the budgetary cost of the war, and the way it sucks all the oxygen out of the room from achieving any meaningful reforms of the kind Trump voters elected him to achieve.
- It is that risk-reward analysis that leads to my skepticism toward the war. Those who disagree need to do so on those terms — what is the sought after reward?; what is the price, or risk, of the means chosen to obtain that reward?; compare and contrast the two to come to a decision about the policy preferences concerning the war. The fact the critics cannot even try to do so speaks volumes about the absence of good arguments on their side of supporting the war.
