Artemis II and Armageddon: Adventures on the Dark Side
Breakfast With Bwana
By Anil Madan
Artemis II, about a quarter million miles from its launch pad, disappeared from earthly view as it rounded to the dark side of the lunar sphere. Science fiction became reality. The astronauts, cut off from contact with earth, crossed over the Terminator — the line that separates lunar night from day — and slung around by gravity, emerged from the darkness, safe and sound. The laws of physics were not violated.
Protests against Iran War in the US. Pic – The New York Times
The crew took time to acknowledge and reinforce their humanity and the humanity of all on earth with an Easter message. Artemis II Pilot, Astronaut Victor Glover reflected: “In all of this emptiness — this is a whole bunch of nothing, this thing we call the universe — you have this oasis, this beautiful place that we get to exist together.”
In contrast to Artemis, the specter of Armageddon on earth rose as the President of the United States posted an Easter Sunday message of his own on his social media platform: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell. JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”
On Saturday, the day before, he posted that Iran had just 48 hours before “all Hell will reign (sic) down on them.”
Here was a different Terminator — a line between darkness and more darkness. His was a different view of our shared humanity. As we know, he ratcheted up his warnings, threatening on two successive days that Iran could be sent “back to the stone ages (sic)” and that “a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again” if Iran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz by his 8 pm Tuesday, Eastern Time deadline.
The law of war was about to be violated. The law of crimes against humanity hung in the balance.
A trail of tears
Let us review for the record, this trail of tears.
On March 21, he posted a demand on social media that Iran fully open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours. He warned that the United States “will obliterate their various power plants, starting with the biggest one first” if Iran does not comply. The following day he reiterated the 48-hour-deadline threatening again to obliterate Iranian power plants.
On March 23, claiming that “very good and productive conversations” were under way and that there had been “major points of agreement,” he extended his deadline by five days.
On April 6, he claimed that the US has “decimated” Iran militarily and economically and that all hell would “reign” down in Iran.
On the same day, he said that the US could take out the entire country in one night and made his reversion to the “stone ages” remark. That led us to the April 7 post that threatening the death of a whole civilization.
Iran denied that it was negotiating with the US, but semantics may be at play here. Iran had previously denied that it was talking to the US when Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan were attempting to mediate. And we now know that various position papers were exchanged via Pakistan as an intermediary. So, Iran was literally not negotiating directly with the US.
There has been, of late, the TACO (Trump always Chickens Out) trade in financial markets, essentially a bet that Trump will not carry out his most dire threats. And the bet has been lucrative, perhaps as some speculate, especially for those given advance notice of Trump’s moves.
With his repeated threats, stock market futures plummeted; oil prices soared. The world seemed on an economic precipice.
It seemed that too many were taking Trump at his word, taking him altogether too seriously. But is it foolhardy to take seriously the threats of a man who has the means to deliver what he promises?
Pope Leo’s Denunciation
Even a week earlier, on Palm Sunday, Pope Leo issued a forceful denunciation of earlier attempts to invoke Divine sanction for the war. “Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” Leo said. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war but rejects them.” The Pope referenced Christ’s rebuke of a follower who drew a sword: “He did not arm himself, or defend himself, or fight any war,” the Pope said, adding that God “always rejects violence.”
On Tuesday, the Pope, said that Trump’s “threat against the entire people of Iran … is truly unacceptable.” He added: “There are certainly issues here of international law, but even more than that, it is a moral question for the good of the (world’s) people.” In an unusual, but not entirely unprecedented, appeal for a political uprising, Leo urged Americans and other people of goodwill to contact their political leaders and congressional representatives to demand they reject war and work for peace.
Iran’s leaders, despite their dismissal of Trump’s threats and the declaration by Iranian President Pezeshkian that he was ready to die in defence of his country, also took Trump far too seriously. They urged Iran’s youth to form human chains around power plants. The oxymoronic nature of this appeal seemed to evade them. Presumably, they thought that a man promising to wipe Iran’s civilisation off the map, would hesitate at killing its youth. A clergy that kills its own people too easily, was willing to sacrifice the youth of the nation for the sake of power plants.
Then Trump, responding to an appeal by Pakistan’s Prime Minister, agreed to delay his strikes on Iran and to consider a two-week ceasefire if Iran immediately reopens the Strait of Hormuz.
The Terminator had terminated his march to Armageddon and seemed to be in search of armistice.
On Wednesday, April 8, stock markets around the world shot up. The US markets seemed to dance in euphoric overdrive. Oil futures tumbled.
An Illusory Agreement
So, what comes next? How will this all shake out?
The most obvious conclusion one can make is that the ceasefire will end after two weeks and we will be back to hostilities. There is an equally obvious conclusion that most ceasefire agreements do make it very difficult for the parties to go back to being combatants. To be sure, there are situations in which one party will use negotiations as a delay tactic to rearm or gain some other advantage. Thankfully, ceasefire agreements have an uncanny way of encouraging combatants to believe they can reach accord by negotiating. Which of these is more likely? I would say the latter, but even in saying this, I am cognizant that we are dealing with irrational parties who decided to fight in the first place instead of starting with a ceasefire before the firing began. As the Artemis II astronauts might tell us, there are some things best left on the dark side of the moon.
The great difficulty with this ceasefire agreement is that, as between the principals Iran and the US, what we have is not much more than an agreement to agree. In legal parlance, that is a nullity because it has no mutually agreed terms that are enforceable. But this is different from what lawyers call an illusory agreement for here we have an agreement to cease firing at each other. Hence, a “ceasefire” agreement is operative.
We cannot tell if Israel was party to the original ceasefire agreement, that is, did Pakistan put together a tripartite agreement, or did Trump simply drag Bibi Netanyahu along? We got a clue earlier, on Wednesday, April 8, when Israel announced that its attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon were not covered by the ceasefire agreement. Iran’s responded that it would close the strait, once again.
Iran seems to have understood that Hezbollah was protected by the ceasefire “agreement,” and accused the US of not upholding its end of the ceasefire, but Israel seemed to say that it understood that there was no such understanding. Iran, quite understandably, suggested that the US was continuing to wage war via Israel, while seeking a ceasefire with Iran, but that it could have both. The Iranians, for their part, continued to attack neighbouring Gulf countries. Certainly, the spirit of the ceasefire agreement is being violated by both Israel and Iran.
The Last Laugh
By the time this article is published, much may have changed. That is the nature of war.
We know little more than that Trump is sending Vice President Vance, and his negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to engage with the Iranian representatives under the auspices of the Pakistani Prime Minister.
On the domestic front in the US, there are signs of disaffection with Trump among his staunchest MAGA supporters including Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and former acolyte Marjorie Taylor Greene. Some have called for his removal. Carlson went so far as to characterize Trump’s Easter message as “vile.” Will this act as a restraint on Trump and keep him from further escalation? An optimist would so hope. An optimist would also know that trying to predict Trump is fraught.
For some perspective, we must recognize that we know very little about Iran’s capabilities. A ceasefire will give Iran the opportunity to restock drones and missiles. Whether it can manufacture its own or import from China or perhaps even Russia is unknown.
In June 2025, a little less than a year ago, Iran fired more than 100 missiles toward Israel. Most were intercepted.
This time around, via AI, I have generated a table showing the number of missiles and drones fired by Iran at Israel and Gulf Countries.
Summary Table (Feb 28, 2026 → early April 2026)
Target Country/Region Missiles & Drones Launched by Iran
GCC Total 4,391
Israel 930
UAE 2,156
Saudi Arabia 723
Kuwait 791
Bahrain 429
Qatar 270
Oman 22
These are staggering numbers. They tell us that Iran was building up for attacks on Israel and the region. It is not too much of a stretch to think that they are not foolish enough to have exhausted their supplies. On the other hand, we do not know how far their launcher capabilities have been degraded.
One cannot be too sanguine about the claim that Iran has been defeated militarily and economically. The only way to find out is if and when (most likely when) there is another war.
Iran may have the last laugh here about the Strait of Hormuz which it can now monetize. There are reports of negotiations with Oman for joint control and revenue sharing from strait traffic. Charges of at least $1 million per container ship and perhaps double that amount are mentioned with the caveat that payments are to be made in Yuan or cryptocurrency. Keeping the money out of the dollar ecosystem vitiates American sanctions.
My guess is that Iran will eventually give up the idea of treating the Strait of Hormuz as its proprietary tollgate. The world will not stand for it because there are too many chokepoints in the world and setting precedents for such monopolies will hinder worldwide commerce in unacceptable ways. Oman will come under intense pressure from its Arab neighbours and the US to abandon any such cooperation with Iran.
Iran has made enemies of the Gulf countries. That rupture is unlikely to be healed for decades. Perhaps never. Iran’s population of more than 90 million presents an ongoing threat to the Gulf nations. Expect those countries to arm themselves and it is not out of the question that we may see nuclear proliferation in the Gulf.
Iran has suffered much damage to its manufacturing capacity. Sanctions over the years have brought hardship to its people. If a deal can be made to lift American sanctions permanently, Iran can reap a windfall from its oil exports. Even with payment for its oil in Yuan, Iran will have enough revenue to enter sizeable contracts with Chinese infrastructure builders and other contractors. China is a source of technology and even armaments for Iran.
The easy path for Iran to benefit from the current mess is to abjure violence against Israel and its Arab neighbours and reenter the world as the responsible and civilized nation it can be. Perhaps that cannot happen without true regime change.
Will Iran emerge from the darkness its theocrats have created, safe and sound as did Artemis?
I’d say it’s a moonshot.
Cheerz…
Bwana
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 10 April 2026
An Appeal
Dear Reader
65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.
With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.
The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.
