☕️ CATFIGHTS ☙ Wednesday, March 18, 2026 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Al Jazeera explains what the New York Times can't see; Schumer accidentally argues for voter ID; Fetterman crosses the aisle; 1837 procedural trick might be the SAVE Act secret sauce; much more.

Good morning, C&C family, it’s Wednesday! Your traveling, hotel-blogged (but fully caffeinated) roundup includes: an Al Jazeera intelligence analyst explains why the Iran strategy is working while the New York Times focuses on a cable news catfight, and why MAGA’s influencer fracture is the only weapon the Democrats have left; the SAVE America Act hits the Senate floor and immediately produces Schumer’s greatest self-own of the decade, a Fetterman defection, and a procedural pathway to passage that nobody in corporate media has figured out yet; and Venezuela beats America at baseball two months after we invaded them, because 2026.

⛑️🚀 C&C ARMY BRIEFING — IRAN WAR UPDATE ⛑️

On Monday, an op-ed appeared in, of all places, Al Jazeera, that could not have graced any of the papers of record here in the United States. It was headlined, “The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why.”

The tonal difference could not be more different. The New York Times’s front page ran a “MAGA Fracture” story headlined, “Rift Widens Among Republicans Over Israel and War in Iran.” The story’s gigantic cover photo platformed Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, both of whom have called the Iran Operation a mistake, an Israeli influence operation, and the worst thing since the EPA mandated energy-efficient dishwashers.

Let’s start with Al Jazeera. The op-ed’s author is a long-time, published intelligence analyst who specializes in the ways authoritarian regimes successfully project force. It was gratifying to see that people are starting to recognize two forces our myopic corporate media cannot detect: the dominant media narrative and the distinction between Trump’s tweets and his actions.

“Two weeks into Operation Epic Fury, the dominant narrative has settled into a comfortable groove: The United States and Israel stumbled into a war without a plan,” the story began. “Oil prices are surging, and the world is facing another Middle Eastern quagmire.” That’s it in a nutshell. The Hill, Monday, becoming a meme of itself:

“But this narrative is wrong,” the author explained. “The critics are measuring the wrong things. They are cataloguing the price of the campaign while ignoring the strategic ledger.” It’s the exact opposite of how corporate media handled the Ukraine Project. When it came to Kiev, they clapped like North Korean generals whenever incalculably expensive “aid” and weapons packages were approved, and their strategic analysis amounted to wildly shouting “Slava Ukraine” at each other and gleefully sharing foreign flag GIFs to load into their social media profile pics.

Remember? According to corporate media, it was unpatriotic to question whether sending hundreds of billions to the world’s capital of fraud, which incidentally happened to be engaged in a life-or-death battle with a nuclear superpower. Just never mind! What was Biden’s ‘plan’ for aiding Ukraine without triggering World War III? Who cares! Beat Putin, that’s the plan! Who needs plans anyway?

The Al Jazeera article admitted that Trump’s tweets are all over the map. One day the President calls for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” The next day he hints that the Iranians are “ready to make a deal.” But while Trump’s sprawled posturing is catnip for corporate media, which thinks the tweets are the story, the op-editor correctly pointed out that tweets have nothing whatever to do with the strategic reality on the ground.

“When you look at what has actually happened,” he said, “the picture is not one of US failure. It is one of systematic, phased degradation of a threat that previous administrations allowed to grow for four decades.” The experienced analyst saw what our media cannot: two phases. “The campaign has moved through two distinct phases. The first suppressed Iran’s air defences, decapitated its command and control, and degraded its missile and drone launch infrastructure.”

“The second phase, now underway, targets Iran’s defence industrial base: missile production facilities, dual-use research centres and the underground complexes where remaining stockpiles are stored. This is not aimless bombing. It is a methodical campaign to ensure that what has been destroyed cannot be rebuilt.”

He says ignore what Trump says on Truth Social and focus on the strategic phases. “The endgame is visible in the operational phasing, even if the rhetoric obscures it. The objective is the permanent degradation of Iran’s ability to project power beyond its borders through missiles, nuclear latency and proxy networks.” He concluded, “Call it strategic disarmament,” likening it to the Allies’ post-World War II strategy of disarming Germany.

What about the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s death-grip on international oil prices? It’s just a matter of time, the author explained. “Closing the strait was always Iran’s most visible retaliatory card, and always a wasting asset. About 90 percent of Iran’s own oil exports pass through Kharg Island and then the strait.” It’s like a bank robber locking himself inside the vault.

“Every day the blockade continues,” the author continued, “Iran severs its own economic lifeline and alienates the one major power that has consistently shielded it at the United Nations. The closure does not just hurt the global economy; it accelerates Iran’s isolation.”

He boiled it down to this: “The absence of a public diplomatic blueprint does not mean the military campaign is failing. It means the campaign is ahead of the diplomacy, a sequencing problem, not a strategic one.” And the campaign is working. “War is never clean,” he concluded, “but the strategy – the actual strategy, measured in degraded capabilities rather than cable news cycles – is working.”

Straight from Al Jazeera: Trump’s strategy is working. The actual, on-the-ground strategy —not the Twitter strategy, not the cable news strategy— is working.

🚀 That’s Al Jazeera. What does the New York Times focus on? MAGA Fracture. Apparently Megyn Kelly and Mark Levin are having an undignified public spat over the war that is doing neither of them much good. Levin called Megyn Ozempic-faced, and Megyn called him “Micropenis Mark.” (Or diminutive words to that effect.) What either of those unfortunate observations have to do with the war is anybody’s guess.

The best you can say is that freedom of speech is spurting all over the place. Things are getting sticky. You could also say Mark and Megyn are not exactly providing helpful examples to the rest of us about how to hold a reasoned debate on the merits with someone who agrees with you on 90% of everything else. The Times called their reasonable debate a “rhetorical brawl,” and for once, not unfairly.

Assuming the best, assuming that both Mark and Megyn have good-faith arguments that should be addressed, there must be a less destructive way to work it out. MAGA Fractures only help the Democrats. And if the Democrats win the midterms, then we are all in big trouble. All of us. Remember what the Democrats did during the pandemic? That was a warmup lap compared to what they will do next, if they get a chance.

If that happens, both Megyn’s and Mark’s supporters will all be equally in the bouillabaisse. And presumably, as they are being prodded into President Walz’s FEMA camp, Megyn and Mark will still be arguing about who really started the war in Iran. It’s like Monty Python’s circular firing squad— the MAGEAN People’s Front fighting with the People’s Front of MAGA.

President Trump has been talking about Iran for at least thirty-eight years. In 1988, he told a Guardian reporter that, if he were president and the Iranians shot someone, gave us the stink eye, or dropped hummus on the tiles, he’d grab Kharg Island immediately (even though it has neither a golf course nor a concierge.) I’m paraphrasing, but you get the idea. During 2026, his Year of Action, he began by striking Venezuela and Cuba, two countries far from the Middle East and any cognizable interest of Israel.

It is totally fair to question anything. Even (or especially) Israel’s outsized influence on U.S. politics. But I have two complaints. First, given Trump’s history, it seems unfair and unreasonable to accuse the President of being anybody’s puppet. He has been perfectly consistent on Iran for most of his adult life, and Iran has been poking the US for most of our adult lives. That’s one thing.

Second, for the sake of everything holy, go ahead and debate these issues— but don’t give the Democrats the gift of the MAGA fracture they’ve been praying to their Wiccan gods for. Why can’t these influencers give each other the benefit of the doubt of good faith? If we are the party of reason, why not allow that other people can sometimes hold reasonable positions that are different from our own, and not because they are sell-outs or whatever?

It is undeniably true that tackling Iran advances Israel’s interests. But it is equally true that it would have been impossible for Trump to tackle Iran without Israel. So … who’s using who? Could the truth be something greyer than the black-and-white purity positions the influencers adopt? Are the US and Israel helping each other, even if for wildly different reasons?

One of C&C’s prime directives is: I don’t punch right. Why not? Because we’ll probably need each other later. That is not to say that I never criticize; I just prefer to give our allies the benefit of the doubt. The SAVE Act debate is a great example. I cautioned restraint while the influencers savaged Senate Majority Leader Thune, who was aggravating everybody by refusing to take a public stand against the silent filibuster. Let the man work, I said. Maybe he has a good reason for not taking a stand, I said. Now, Thune is engineering a Senate debate, which is very close to what we wanted. (And it’s been great so far.)

Never forget that our enemies’ preferred tactic is to sow division, turn populations against each other, and make us destroy ourselves. “Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting,” Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu advised. Democrats don’t need to break MAGA if MAGA does it for free. The Democrats are achieving supreme excellence by doing nothing while we do the fighting for them.

They’re exploiting our weakness, which should be a strength. Progressives avoid the trap by brutally enforcing homogenous ideological purity. Conservatives don’t work that way. We allow free speech, free thought, and free debate. That’s both our strength and our weakness, if we don’t do it right.

So we must debate better. Respectful debate is messy. It’s hard, and often frustrating. But it is worth it, which is why Western Civilization was built from it. We can do this.

Don’t be Daryl.

🔥 Al Jazeera’s analyst compared President Trump’s Iran strategy to the post-WWII Allied disarmament of Germany. U.S. corporate media compared it to a cable news ratings battle. In 2026, you have to read Al Jazeera to find out what America’s military is actually doing. The New York Times will tell you what Megyn Kelly tweeted about what Mark Levin said about it.

Thus, we have at long last come to this: Al Jazeera is now a more reliable source of useful information than the New York Times, which has transformed itself into a caricature of a supermarket tabloid. Frankly, I would rather read about how the Woman Who Had UFO Baby Becomes Top OnlyFans Earner than the pitiful detritus the Trump-deranged Times calls “journalism.”

(Mark and Kelly— please set a good example and make up, so we can focus on our real enemies. You’re giving Democrats free ammunition and making the rest of us watch two people we like embarrass themselves. Nobody wins a food fight except people who aren’t at the table.)

🌍🇺🇸 ESSENTIAL NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🇺🇸🌍

🔥🔥🔥

Speaking of debates, yesterday, the long-awaited SAVE America Act debate began in the Senate. Corporate media could find no “rhetorical brawl” on the Democrats’ side, though. The Hill’s story reported more conservative conflict, below the headline “GOP tempers flare over how to pass SAVE America Act.”

Just look at the Hill’s first sentence: “Tempers are starting to boil within the Senate Republican Conference as disagreements arise over how to handle President Trump’s No. 1 legislative priority, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act, which Trump wants to push through the Senate despite staunch Democratic opposition.”

See? Republicans are described as boiling their tempers, while the debating Democrats are described as “staunch.” This is how the fracture narrative works. Highlight your opponents’ disagreements and frame your side as unified. But the truth was much more entertaining than this dumb narrative.

The gold medal must go to Senate Minority Leader Chuck “BBQ” Schumer (D-NY). Yesterday, the intellectual lightweight declared, “The SAVE Act would make it easier to buy an AR-15 than to register to vote.” Um, you need a photo ID to buy an AR-15 too, Chuck. 🤦‍♂️ He accidentally argued for the bill. It was like watching 5-year-olds playing soccer get turned around in a scrum and start kicking toward their own goal.

Majority Leader Thune opened the session with a series of amendments carefully designed to tee up the “hybrid filibuster,” followed by a successful 51-47 vote to launch the whole thing. Thune must be given credit for planning and execution. (Only Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) defected on the vote.) This early success was encouraging.

On the Democrat side, John Fetterman defected and joined the Ayes. Soon, I’m going to have to take back all the jokes I cracked about the hoodied poster-boy for jab injuries, and retire my entire Fetterman Comedy Franchise. (Soon, I’ll have to send Fetterman an apology card. A short one. In large font.)

Now, thanks to Fetterman, Republicans can call the vote “bipartisan.” Bipartisan like the January 6th Committee! Texas Senator Ted Cruz took the high ground, saying, “You need a photo ID to enroll in college. You need a photo ID to open a bank account, and actually, two photo IDs to shovel snow in New York City.”

🔥 There’s a lot of confusion flying around. Allow me to explain how this thing works— to the extent we know. The ‘hybrid’ talking filibuster is a historic procedural innovation that leader Thune is testing for the very first time, and it squats somewhere in between the old-school talking filibuster and the modern silent filibuster.

Under current Senate rules, any senator can signal their intent to filibuster a bill by just saying so. The majority leader then files a ‘cloture’ motion, which requires 60 votes to pass. If cloture fails, the ‘silent filibuster’ is undefeated, and the bill dies. Nobody needs to stand on the floor. Nobody needs to debate anything. The 60-vote threshold does all the work, silently, which is why it’s called the “silent filibuster” — it’s a stealthy veto assassin that leaves no fingerprints.

Under his creative compromise version, Thune is requiring extended floor debate before filing cloture. Since the bill has gone to the floor, both sides must actually argue their positions in open public session. We don’t know how long, and Thune isn’t saying. It could be days, nights, and weekends. Senators opposing the bill have to physically stand at the podium and make their case. Only after this extended debate period, however long it is, will Thune then file the cloture motion.

Recall that the Senate debated the Civil Rights Act in 1964 for two months. Just saying.

The debate period isn’t the only mystery. The math still doesn’t work. Cloture, which is needed to defeat the talking filibuster, still requires 60 votes. Republicans hold 53 seats (52 after Murkowski defected on the procedural vote). They need at least 7 Democrats to cross over. That’s not happening on this bill, and everyone involved knows it.

There are three paths to passage. First, seven more Democrats could cross the aisle and join Republicans, which seems about as likely as Joe Biden finishing a sentence before 2028, and would cause the base to burn Democrats’ offices like they were Tesla dealerships. Second, Thune could change the rules —the “nuclear option”— but so far, too many Republicans oppose it. He lacks the votes on our side.

Or third, it could be something nobody sees coming.

I predict it will be the third option. Just as an example, one wild idea thrown around is passing the SAVE Act as a budget bill, under a procedure called “reconciliation” that skirts filibusters entirely and only needs fifty-plus-one. They tried this before, and the parliamentarian rejected voter ID as extraneous (not budget-related) under the Byrd Rule that time.

But what if they frame it differently? That fraud task force Vance is now chairing quantified federal losses at $233-521 billion annually. If they can tie voter registration integrity to federal benefits fraud —arguing that non-citizen voter registrations are a vector for fraudulent benefits enrollment, which hits the budget— they might get the budgetary nexus the Byrd Rule requires.

It would be very creative lawyering, and the parliamentarian might still reject it, but the fraud EO from two days ago just built an evidentiary framework for the possibility. Mind you, I’m not predicting this particular scenario. I’m just saying it seems likely they have a plan nobody has thought of yet.

🔥 A recent Federalist article suggested a simpler —but much harder— way it could work: The ramrod. On Monday, it ran a story headlined, “GOP Doesn’t Need To ‘Change’ Senate Rules To Pass SAVE Act.” It only needs to take the little blue pill.

Here’s the Federalist’s mechanism: Under existing Senate precedent, if the majority forces an actual talking filibuster and no senator from the minority is physically holding the floor —meaning nobody is standing and speaking— then the presiding officer can put the question to a vote. Final passage of any bill has always been a simple majority; the 60-vote threshold only applies to cloture (the motion to end debate).

But if debate ends on its own —say, because the minority stops talking— then the Senate can skip cloture entirely and go straight to a majority vote.

So the play is: Republicans maintain a quorum (51 GOP senators must be present at all times), force Democrats to physically hold the floor 24/7, and just … wait. The moment no Democrat is standing at the podium and speaking, a Republican moves to call the question. Simple majority, bill passes— no rule change needed. No nuclear option.

It could work, but it’s physically brutal. Democrats have 47 senators, but they’d need continuous, unbroken coverage of the floor— day and night, for as long as it takes. If any single shift change gets fumbled, if any senator is late getting to the podium at 3 AM, if there’s a gap of even a few minutes, Republicans can pounce.

The logistical burden falls entirely on the minority. And the political cost compounds every hour— every speech is another clip of a goofy Democrat inarticulately arguing against voter ID.

As with everything, the Federalist’s proposal is simple, elegant, and forceful, but it obscures a few inconvenient wrinkles. Senate procedure is insanely complicated. Democrats have procedural countermoves —quorum calls, parliamentary inquiries, motions to adjourn— that can stall momentum without technically “debating.” The Senate parliamentarian would be refereeing judgment calls in real time.

Also, 47 senators rotating in 2-hour shifts adds up to 94 hours of coverage before anyone speaks twice. That’s almost four days. Democrats could probably keep it up for a week or longer if they stay disciplined and practice their Kegels.

🔥 Will it work? That’s the keen question, the building climax, that makes this such an engaging story. Thune wants to test Democrats’ endurance; how long can they keep it up? But that’s only the narrow story.

I can’t conclude without mentioning the timing of a few other big stories: first, Florida’s SAVE Act is headed for Governor DeSantis’ desk and is poised to pass. Does that relate somehow? How can the Sunshine State’s brand-new ID law be useful in the national debate?

Next, the media’s baleful eye is split between faraway Iran and a rhetorical brawl unfolding in the Senate for at least the rest of the week. It also keeps the Senators busy. Does the SAVE Act show buy Trump time and space to do what he needs to do in the war? Behind everything are another couple million pages of Epstein files, and a rapidly unfolding nationwide fraud scandal.

Whew. It’s kind of like House of Cards married Veep, and then they had octuplets in the West Wing.

The fraud task force, the SAVE Act, Iran, Cuba, and the Epstein files— all running simultaneously. Coincidence? Or schedule?

What do you think? Where’s it all headed? Will the SAVE America Act pass and save America? Will Trump win Cuba and Iran next week? Will the Democrats apologize for putting tampons in boys’ restrooms? Will Venezuela beat America at baseball? Wait, that just happened. It just goes to show you: anything is possible.

Have a wonderful Wednesday! Swing back here tomorrow morning for more delicious and intellectually nutritious Coffee & Covid-style essential news and commentary.

Don’t race off! We cannot do it alone. Consider joining up with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could sure use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠

How to Donate to Coffee & Covid

Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com