The Axis

A joke, a gunshot, and a president speaking the language of war: the Kimmel–Trump episode reveals how unstable the border between satire, symbolic injury, and political violence has become. Kimmel’s “expectant widow” joke did not simply offend Trump; it touched the fragile aura of power, age, marriage, and mortality. But after the attempted attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the joke was pulled into a different register and treated as if it belonged to the same world as physical violence. This piece examines how Trump’s warlike language converts ridicule into threat, threat into persecution, and persecution into authority.BibliographyAssociated Press. “Man Accused of Trying to Kill Trump at Correspondents’ Gala Agrees to Remain Jailed for Now.” AP News, April 30, 2026. Entertainment Weekly. “Jimmy Kimmel Says Donald and Melania Trump Are ‘Closer Than Ever’ Thanks to Controversial ‘Expectant Widow’ Joke.” Entertainment Weekly, April 30, 2026. Reuters. “Legal Filing Raises Questions About Who Shot Secret Service Officer at Press Dinner.” Reuters, April 29, 2026. Reuters. “Trump Calls Suspect in Press Dinner Attack ‘Pretty Sick Guy’.” Reuters, April 26, 2026. United States Department of Justice. “Suspect in White House Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting Charged with Attempting to Assassinate the President.” Justice.gov, April 27, 2026

This column draws a parallel between the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and the challenges faced by modern naval power in asymmetric warfare. By linking religious symbolism, Lacanian theory, and contemporary geopolitics, it argues that the gap between symbolic belief and material reality has become a defining feature of modern conflict.Chicago-Style BibliographyBlumenthal, Max. “The Islamabad Negotiations Are a Hoax.” YouTube video, 2026.Cronenberg, David, dir. Videodrome. Canada: Universal Pictures, 1983.Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Translated by Bruce Fink. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006.Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. New York: W.W. Norton, 1978.“He Blew with His Winds, and They Were Scattered.” Wikipedia. Gutiérrez, Óscar. “Iran Challenges the Powerful US Navy in an Asymmetric Naval Battle in the Gulf.” El País, March 13, 2026. “A Conflict of Attrition: Iran’s Bet on Asymmetric Warfare.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2026. 

In the aftermath of the Islamabad talks, diplomacy appears to proceed even as escalation deepens. This episode explores how negotiations, symbolic acts, and religious language operate within the same strategic field. Drawing on Max Blumenthal’s critique, Lacanian theory, and a striking visual incident involving a profaned religious image, the analysis shows how power does not eliminate the sacred—it redistributes it asymmetrically. Through a Videodrome lens, we examine how signals—diplomatic, military, and symbolic—do not merely reflect reality but actively produce it. BibliographyBlumenthal, Max. “The Islamabad Negotiations Are a Hoax.” Video. YouTube.Cronenberg, David, dir. Videodrome. Canada: Universal Pictures, 1983.Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Translated by Bruce Fink. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006.Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. Edited by Jacques-Alain Miller. New York: W.W. Norton, 1978.McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.Chatham House. Iran and the Strait of Hormuz: Strategic Implications. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, recent reports.Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Missile Threat and Naval Power Reports. Washington, DC: CSIS, recent publications.

DescriptionA clear and accessible analysis of the Iran conflict as a political and symbolic test for Trump. The piece argues that the issue is not immediate defeat, but a growing tension between his message of control and a reality that remains unresolved, contradictory, and resistant to simple outcomes.Bibliography The New York Times. “Trump’s Iran War Tests the Limits of Control.” April 15, 2026. Larry Johnson. Trump’s Naval Blockade & Ceasefire Collapse.Video analysis, April 2026. Reuters. “U.S. Naval Blockade of Iran Raises Risk of Prolonged Conflict.” April 2026. The Washington Post. “House Divided Over Trump’s War Powers in Iran Conflict.” April 2026. El País. “EE.UU. e Irán Entre la Escalada y la Negociación.” April 2026.

DescriptionThis column explores how governments can become trapped in their own frameworks of rationality, losing sight of the realities they claim to manage. Drawing on Lacan, Bataille, and Alien, it argues that overconfidence in control blinds power to the forces that exceed it.

Chile’s fuel price increase is being framed as an unavoidable economic reality. But this framing hides a deeper tension. The government is acting rationally in economic terms—reducing subsidies and maintaining fiscal discipline. Yet, as Bataille suggests, reality always includes excess that cannot be fully controlled, and as Lacan reminds us, social stability depends on symbolic meanings, not just numbers. Fuel prices are one such symbol. When they shift abruptly, the issue is no longer just economic—it becomes social and political. What is presented as necessity may, in fact, generate the very instability it tries to avoid.Bibliography BioBioChile. “Una ‘crisis inédita en 40 años’: la engañosa frase con que el gobierno justificó alza de combustibles.” March 24, 2026. El País. “Alza de los combustibles en Chile: cuánto suben y las medidas de mitigación impulsadas por el gobierno.” March 24, 2026. Bataille, Georges. The Accursed Share: An Essay on General Economy. New York: Zone Books, 1988. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006.

The debate over MEPCO, the fuel price stabilization mechanism, in Chile is not just economic—it reveals a deeper political logic. While mechanisms like MEPCO buffer global volatility, today’s politics increasingly operates through saturation: multiple signals, overlapping reforms, constant movement. In Jameson’s terms, this produces fragmentation without totality; in Lacan’s, a sliding of signifiers without a point de capiton. Citizens feel the effects—rising costs—but cannot map their causes. What emerges is not clarity, but disorientation: a politics of surfaces where everything is visible, yet nothing fully makes sense.

The possibility of a U.S.-Israel strike on Kharg Island marks a dangerous turning point in the Iran war because it would shift the conflict from military confrontation to full-scale energy warfare. As the main terminal handling roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports, Kharg represents the country’s economic lifeline, making it an extremely attractive target for maximum pressure—but also a trigger for maximum escalation. Recent strikes on Iran’s South Pars gas field and Tehran’s explicit threats against Gulf energy infrastructure suggest that Iran’s response would not be symmetrical but systemic: if it cannot export oil, it will seek to disrupt the entire Gulf’s energy network. This creates a structural contradiction in U.S. strategy—escalating militarily while attempting to contain global economic fallout. For now, Washington and Tel Aviv appear to be testing the limits without crossing the final threshold, but the growing centrality of energy targets indicates that the war is drifting toward a scenario in which attacking Kharg Island could transform a regional conflict into a global economic crisis.Bibliography Reuters. “Tehran Warns Gulf Energy Installations After Oil Industry Facilities Hit in Southern Iran.” March 18, 2026.Reuters. “Iran’s Main Oil and Gas Production and Infrastructure.” March 18, 2026.Reuters. “Oil Prices Jump After Iran Threatens to Attack Middle East Energy Facilities.” March 18, 2026.Reuters. “Oil Prices Rise as Supply Concerns Grow Amid Iran Conflict.” March 18, 2026.Associated Press. “About 90 Ships Cross the Strait of Hormuz as Iran Exports Oil Despite the War.” March 18, 2026.The Guardian. “Trump Waives U.S. Shipping Law for Oil and Gas in Bid to Lower Prices.” March 18, 2026.Financial Times. “Iran Vows Retaliation Against Energy Sites Across Gulf After Largest Gas Field Hit.” March 2026.

The war with Iran is beginning to reshape global geopolitics in unexpected ways. As instability in the Middle East pushes oil prices upward, the United States has quietly eased some sanctions on Russian oil shipments in order to stabilize energy markets. At the same time, reports of a phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin suggest that Washington may be searching for a diplomatic “off-ramp” from the conflict. Together, these developments reveal a deeper reality: despite years of attempts to isolate Russia, the global system still depends heavily on energy supply. When markets are threatened, political strategies adjust quickly, and rivals may find themselves indirectly cooperating to prevent a wider crisis. The Iran war, therefore, is not only a regional conflict—it is also exposing the limits of economic isolation and reminding us that geopolitics ultimately remains grounded in material resources such as oil.

This analysis argues that modern wars depend not only on military force but also on symbolic authority—the coherent narrative that explains why a war is being fought and what its objectives are. President Donald Trump’s instinct-driven decision-making style has produced shifting and sometimes contradictory explanations for the current conflict with Iran, risking the erosion of the symbolic credibility needed to sustain political support at home and confidence among allies. At the same time, Iran appears to be pursuing a strategy of asymmetric endurance, expanding the battlefield and raising economic costs in order to prolong the conflict and test Washington’s political stamina. The result is a clash between rapid, improvisational decision-making in Washington and a slower strategy of attrition in Tehran. In such circumstances, the durability of the war effort may depend not only on military capability but also on whether the United States can maintain a coherent narrative that justifies the conflict over time.BibliographyAlhasan, Hasan T. “Middle East Security and the Gulf Cooperation Council.” International Institute for Strategic Studies.Erlanger, Steven. “Iran’s Strategy: Expand the War, Increase the Cost, Outlast Trump.” The New York Times, March 3, 2026.Gady, Franz-Stefan. Military analysis on missile warfare and air defense systems.Geranmayeh, Ellie. European Council on Foreign Relations. Commentary on Iranian strategic options.Kroenig, Matthew. Atlantic Council. Analysis of U.S. strategic objectives in Iran.Nasr, Vali. Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Commentary on Iranian strategic endurance.Rothkopf, David. Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power. New York: PublicAffairs, 2005.Sanger, David E. “Trump Follows His Gut. His National Security Advisers Try to Keep Up.” The New York Times, March 4, 2026.Vaez, Ali. International Crisis Group. Analysis of Iranian escalation strategy.

This analysis explores the arrest of Armando Fernández Larios through the lens of irony rather than vengeance. Drawing on Greek mythology—specifically the figure of Actaeon—and on archival records from Chile’s Museum of Memory and Human Rights, the text examines how structures of power can turn back on those who once operated them. The piece reflects on repression, bureaucracy, and accountability, connecting dictatorship-era violence in Chile with contemporary debates about state power and enforcement in the United States. It argues that history does not always deliver justice deliberately, but sometimes does so inadvertently, through the cold continuity of institutional machinery.