The Chief Legacy of 9/11

The chief legacy of 9/11 is as obvious as it is tragic: a state of permanent warfare in the United States, both abroad and in the “homeland” (a term not used in normal discourse before the 9/11 attacks), with millions dead and displaced for no defensible reason.

If you’re 25 years old or younger in America, you’ve never known a time when your country wasn’t at war. “Peace” is no longer seen as desirable, let alone possible. War is seen as America’s natural state; a land of warriors are we, imbued with a “warrior ethos” that applauds kicking other countries when their down and beating the snot out of them just because we can.

Meanwhile, in the “homeland,” surveillance grows ever more intrusive by the day as agents of ICE kick down doors and haul people away to detention centers that are being rapidly expanded. Personal privacy is increasingly a thing of the past as the government wraps itself in a shroud of secrecy that makes oversight and accountability well-nigh impossible.

The global war on terror has become a war of terror. War begets more war, with no end in sight.

Re-reading the Atlantic Monthly 150th anniversary issue from November 2007, I came across this gem of a quote from America’s 9/11 mayor, Rudolph Giuliani:

We’ve got to be patient and committed [in Iraq], but we’ve got to multitask… We’ve got to talk about Iran – Iran is more dangerous than Iraq – and we have got to get the job done in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

That was Giuliani in July of 2007 when he ran as a Republican presidential candidate. In America, that’s how you get treated as a “serous” candidate for the presidency – by urging for war not just with Iraq and Afghanistan but with Pakistan and Iran as well. We can “multitask” our wars! Truly a sign of American greatness.

Well, Giuliani’s dream has come true – we are talking a lot about Iran today.

Keep reading

When War Comes Home: A Constitutional Warning

A failed war does not end when the drones stop flying. It creates a new danger: A government that refuses to admit defeat and a president who, having failed abroad, seeks muscular victories elsewhere.

The war against Iran is a case study in the limits of military power, the dangers of presidential overreach and the enduring wisdom of the Constitution’s separation of powers. It was unauthorized, unconstitutional, illegal, strategically incoherent and — by the standards by which wars must be judged — a geopolitical failure.

The American people were told that force would achieve clear objectives. Iran would be compelled to surrender. Somehow, American security would be enhanced. The region would become more stable.

Instead, the United States expended enormous resources, consumed scarce munitions, deepened regional instability and failed to produce the political outcome President Donald Trump promised. Senior military officials just last week warned him that extending large-scale operations risked exhausting critical military capabilities and weakening America’s ability to respond elsewhere.

The United States can destroy buildings, eliminate targets, deploy aircraft, ships, missiles, drones and troops anywhere on the planet. But war is not a video game in which the destruction of enemy assets automatically produces political surrender. War is a contest of wills, societies, culture and endurance.

And here is the constitutional question that should have been asked before the first bomb was dropped: Who gave the president the authority to begin this war? The Constitution did not.

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress — not the president — the power to declare war. The framers deliberately rejected the British model in which kings could drag nations into conflicts based upon personal judgment, ambition or political convenience. James Madison warned that the executive branch was “the branch of power most interested in war,” and therefore the Constitution placed the decision to enter war outside the president’s constitutional reach.

The president is commander in chief. He commands forces after lawful congressional decisions have been made. He does not possess the power to transform his title into a personal authority to begin wars.

That principle has been repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court. In cases such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Court rejected the idea that President Harry Truman had unlimited power simply because he claimed national security. Justice Robert Jackson’s famous concurrence warned that executive power is most dangerous when it operates in a “zone of twilight” where presidents attempt to expand authority beyond constitutional boundaries and without congressional concurrence.

The Iran war belongs precisely in that twilight — where executive ambition collides with constitutional restraint.

The administration may argue that modern threats require flexibility. That argument has been made by presidents of both parties for decades. But flexibility is not the same as unlimited authority. The Constitution was written for difficult moments, not easy ones. It was designed to restrain presidents even when they believe they have compelling reasons to act.

The military failure abroad has created a political dilemma at home. A president who promised victory must now confront the reality that victory was never achieved.

The danger is what happens next.

History teaches that political leaders who suffer public humiliation abroad often seek demonstrations of strength elsewhere. Foreign-policy failure can produce domestic overreach. Leaders who cannot achieve the desired result overseas may attempt to prove their power through actions at home.

That is where the war comes home.

The president, frustrated by military limitations, may turn toward radical immigration enforcement, Supreme Court-prohibited tariffs, statutorily prohibited domestic deployments of military forces, stealing foreign-owned oil, and assertions of executive authority that collide with free speech and free association.

But the Constitution does not permit a president to substitute disappointment for law.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person — not just Americans — shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The Sixth Amendment guarantees all persons — not just Americans — from whom the government seeks life, liberty or property the right to a public trial before an impartial jury, and other constitutional protections. These protections apply not because accused persons are necessarily innocent but because government power is too dangerous to operate without restraints.

Evidence is not conviction. Accusation is not guilt. Presidential assertion is not judicial judgment.

The executive branch cannot simply identify alleged criminals in speedboats or elsewhere, declare them enemies and impose punishment without trial. That is a system the American Revolution rejected.

The same principle applies to the use of military force inside the United States. The founders were deeply suspicious of standing armies being used for law enforcement. That suspicion produced constitutional protections and later statutes prohibiting the military’s role in civilian law enforcement.

The military exists to defend the nation from foreign threats. It is not a presidential police force.

Keep reading

America’s War on Iran Has Always Been a Bipartisan Effort

American bombs are now falling on Tehran, and while Donald Trump ultimately pulled the trigger, administrations before him—Republican and Democrat alike—constructed the gun, and even loaded it.

In 1995, US president Bill Clinton issued executive orders banning US investment tied to Iran’s petroleum sector and, soon after, most US trade with and investment in Iran. His administration justified the sanctions with an accusation that would later be used against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq not even a decade later: “Iran’s efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction” and their alleged support for terrorism.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which had visited Iran a few years prior to inspect their nuclear activity, reported no evidence of nuclear weapons.

In 1996, Congress followed up with the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which passed 415-0 in the House, and by unanimous consent in the Senate,targeting foreign and US companies investing more than $20 million a year in Iran’s energy sector.

Much like embargoes on Iraq, which were linked to catastrophic civilian deaths, over time, American sanctions on Iran decimated the economy and its people by devaluing currency, shrinking living standards, and limiting access to food and medicine.

In 2000, a report by a neoconservative think-tank called Project for the New American Century warned that even if Saddam Hussein were removed, “the need for a substantial American force presence” in the region would remain because “Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests in the Gulf” as Iraq has.

Several prominent figures involved with the think-tank later joined the Bush administration, including Donald RumsfeldPaul Wolfowitz, and John Bolton.

In 2001, shortly after 9/11, Iran offered counter-terrorism assistance to the US, but instead, President Bush lumped them in with Iraq and North Korea under an umbrella he termed the “Axis of Evil”. Clinton-era sanctions were kept in placenew ones were added, and covert measures began to undermine the Iranian establishment.

That same year, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force by a vote of 420-1 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate, granting the president sweeping authority to use military action against those connected to the 9/11 attacks. Although Iran had no connection to 9/11, the deliberately broad language of the bill created a permanent legal framework for military action across the Middle East without requiring new congressional approval.

Towards the end of Bush’s final term in office, a 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate (a comprehensive report involving all US intelligence agencies) concluded with “high confidence” that Iran was not currently building a nuclear weapon.

Still, Barack Obama’s policies continued beating the drums of war.

In 2010, he significantly expanded financial sanctions on Iran’s oil, gas, and banking sectors, measures that severely restricted access to essential medicines in Iran, which passed the House 408–8 and the Senate 99–0.

At the same time, his administration intensified Bush-era cyber operations against Iranian nuclear facilities. The Stuxnet computer worm, reportedly developed by the US and Israel, was credited with disabling hundreds of centrifuges and delaying enrichment efforts, even though the nuclear program continued to show no signs of weaponization.

In 2015, Obama concluded a nuclear deal that imposed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. But its premise was a masterclass in propaganda that worked to build further consensus for war, first by painting Iran as an aggressor, and second by continuing to perpetuate a narrative that it was interested in pursuing nuclear weapons, despite continued evidence to the contrary.

Meanwhile, far more aggressive American allies in the region—namely Israel—were exempt from such scrutiny, with their own nuclear stockpile shrouded in secrecy and tucked away from international oversight of any kind.

After the nuclear deal lifted certain sanctions in 2016, Iran’s economy rebounded. And yet at the same time, US and Israeli hawks continued to fret, alternating their fearmongering and moving the goalpost away from Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons and instead towards their regional influence and ballistic missile program.

Republicans and Democrats joined together the following year to pass new sanctions on Iran’s missile program, along with entities tied to the Revolutionary Guard. These measures were approved with a vote of 419-3 in the House, 98-2 in the Senate.

Fortunately for the many warmongers adorning both major political parties, the arrangement with Iran had been signed late into Obama’s second term, paving the way for a new president to conveniently overturn it.

In 2018, Donald Trump did exactly that. His administration unilaterally withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions. In April 2019, the US designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s most powerful military and political force, as a foreign terrorist organization. The following year, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, head of the Guard Corps’ Quds Force, a dramatic escalation.

Taking office in January 2021, the administration of Joe Biden largely maintained Trump’s “maximum pressure” framework, leaving existing sanctions in place, along with Trump’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

And while Biden campaigned on rejoining the nuclear deal, once in office, he demanded Iranian compliance as a prelude to sanction relief, which effectively made it impossible given growing Iranian distrust for the US.

In late 2022, after being asked about the nuclear deal by a woman appearing to wear a hair ribbon in Iran’s flag colors, Biden reportedly responded that the deal was “dead”, adding, “I know they don’t represent you, but they will have a nuclear weapon.”

Two years later, an assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence found that Iran “has undertaken activities that better position it to produce one, if it so chooses” but added that “the Intelligence Community continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.”

Even so, in October 2024, when asked who she thought America’s “greatest adversary” was, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris replied: “I think there’s an obvious one in mind, which is Iran.”

Harris, like Trump, repeated the lie that Iran was in the business of pursuing nukes, saying the US “will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Period.” And like Trump, she maintained that “all options” remained on the table to keep them from obtaining nuclear weapons, including military force.

In 2025, a majority of Democrats voted with Republicans to hand the Trump administration $900 billion in military spending, which provided funding for Pentagon operations, weapons procurement, overseas deployments, and military readiness programs for the upcoming fiscal year.

At nearly every stage, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, along with presidents from both major parties, have laid the foundation for a war on Iran.

The Bush administration lied its way into an invasion of Iraq, but nobody was held accountable. The Obama administration expanded the Bush-era Authorization for Use of Military Force to include drone-bombings in at least seven different countries, along with the targeting of US citizens accused of terrorism, and again, nobody was held accountable. Trump built on these precedents during his first term not only by amping up Obama’s drone strikes, but also by assassinating an Iranian commander. Again, no accountability. The Biden administration funded Israel’s flattening of the Gaza Strip while also shielding it from repercussions at the United Nations and International Criminal Court, effectively demonstrating that the so-called rules of international law were never fair, but instead, selectively applied.

Over time, escalation itself became normalized.

Economic warfare became cyber sabotage. Cyber sabotage became targeted assassinations. What were once extraordinary war powers became permanent executive authorities. By the time Trump entered the White House for his second term, the framework for America’s long-awaited war on Iran was already in place.

All he had to do was pull the trigger.

Keep reading

Iran Vows ‘Faster, More Painful’ Response To US Attacks After Weekend Sea Battle

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on Sunday announced a heightened military posture in the war with the US, saying that new attacks on the country will “meet a faster, heavier and more painful response.

“If they haven’t understood by now, they should understand before it’s too late that the rules of the game have changed and that from now on, any violation of Iran’s interests and security will receive a ‘faster, heavier, and more painful’ response,” Ghalibaf said in a post on Telegram. He has warned that Iranian retaliation will no longer be “proportionate”.

Ghalibaf also conceded that Iran faces severe economic pressures amid US-led sweeping sanctions and the campaign of ‘strangulation’ and isolation efforts.

“Severe fluctuations in the exchange rate, inflation, unemployment, and market management are fundamental challenges that have put serious pressure on people’s livelihoods,” Ghalibaf said.

He also laid out that the Islamic Republic must aim to bolster domestic production and use technology to “devise short-term and permanent solutions.” Iran’s military has all along touted that it never stopped manufacturing missiles and drones, even as US-Israeli bombs decimated many industrial sites.

Ghalibaf’s words come a day after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it attacked three American military ships and three oil tankers using an “unauthorized” route in the Strait of Hormuz. Also, in the latest:

Iran said Sunday it struck an unmanned U.S. vessel trying to enter the Strait of Hormuz, a claim that the U.S. military dismissed as a “total lie.”

The US military earlier on Saturday had struck three Iranian oil tankers, M/T DownyM/T Stark 1, and M/T Kylo – in a major first of the conflict (that is, a US attack on civilian vessels).

Keep reading

Iran: Several Ballistic Missiles Fired At US Aircraft Carrier, Navy Destroyer

Iran Unleashes Large Drone Swarm Attacks on Several Ships

Iran state media is releasing footage of its own Saturday action against US assets in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, as part of the fresh weekend tit-for-tat fighting with the United States. Per state PressTV and IRIB, it seems Tehran is saying it has targeted six vessels:

  • The IRGC targets three US-related vessels and three oil tankers in the Hormuz Strait, warning all vessels against choosing unauthorized routes to transit Hormuz.
  • In response to US attacks on three Iranian tankers, Iran has targeted three vessels in the unauthorized route of the Strait of Hormuz, along with three American ships.

Al Jazeera Breaking:

BREAKING: Iran says several ballistic missiles fired at US aircraft carrier, Navy destroyer

The IRGC Navy is claiming a “response” to US aggression: “This morning, the terrorist and aggressor US military, in a brutal act born of desperation from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, attacked three oil tankers belonging to the Islamic Republic, causing damage,” the force said in a statement on Saturday. In response, it continues: “the fighters of the IRGC Navy targeted three oil tankers traveling along an unauthorized route through the Strait of Hormuz, as well as three vessels affiliated with the child-killing United States, in other areas.”

IRAN SHOWS NEVER-BEFORE-SEEN STRIKES on ‘VIOLATING’ vessels in Hormuz — Tasnim

The overnight into early Sunday hours are going to be interesting, awaiting more possible Pentagon action, even as the Department of War says this is not a “war”.

CENTCOM Confirms Strikes 

US Central Command confirmed on X that US forces struck three Iranian oil tankers after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched ballistic missiles toward two US Navy warships

CENTCOM provided details:

Following Iran’s failed attacks, CENTCOM permanently disabled the IRGC crude oil carriers M/T Downy off the coast of Kharg Island and M/T Stark 1 near Jask. American forces also completely destroyed the unladen crude oil carrier M/T Kylo (also known as the “Noxen”) in the Gulf of Oman, striking the vessel in multiple critical locations to render it inoperable after the crew was directed to abandon ship.

The three Iranian crude oil tankers are part of a multibillion-dollar shadow network that funds the IRGC and its regional proxies. Iran has no means by which to defend them.

CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper stated:

Let the message to the IRGC be clear: If you shoot at two of our ships, we will impose an even higher economic cost —taking out three of yours. 

We will not hesitate to defend American forces, and if necessary, destroy Iran’s limited and exposed oil fleet. 

Keep reading

Trump’s Saudi Nuclear Agreement May Prolong the Iran War

A final deal between the United States and Iran is slipping further out of reach. Since the Memorandum of Understanding collapsed in July, the prospects for reviving it have deteriorated by the day. While Tehran publicly demands a return to the MOU, Trump’s current position is that even if Iran reopened the Strait of Hormuz, he would neither return to the agreement nor lift the blockade on Iran. And even in the unlikely event that he did, the MOU could not come back into force as long as Israel continues to bombard Lebanon. Iran is unlikely to accept an MOU minus Lebanon: its demand for a regional ceasefire is non-negotiable.

But even if these obstacles were resolved, profound differences over the nuclear issue would remain. And those differences have now grown dramatically more severe because of Trump’s nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia. The details of the deal were just made public, and Kelsey Davenport at the Arms Control Association has published an excellent FAQ addressing its most important aspects.

The bottom line is: Trump is granting Saudi Arabia access to the same uranium-enrichment technology the United States has sought to deny Iran for more than three decades, while imposing a far weaker inspection regime on Saudi nuclear activities. In effect, Washington is providing Riyadh a pathway to the bomb while insisting that Iran have no enrichment capability whatsoever – the infamous zero-enrichment objective.

As ACA writes,

“the Trump administration rejected key nonproliferation conditions for U.S. nuclear cooperation that have long-standing bipartisan support and are internationally recognized best practices.

Most critically, the deal does not require Saudi Arabia to adhere to the more intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, known as the Additional Protocol.”

As a point of comparison, Iran began voluntarily implementing the Additional Protocol (AP) under Obama’s nuclear deal in 2016 and was expected to ratify it once the United States formally lifted sanctions through Congress. That never happened, however, because Trump withdrew from the agreement in May 2018.

Moreover, Trump’s agreement with Saudi Arabia gives the kingdom a pathway to develop a uranium-enrichment program reaching 20 percent. Again, the comparison with Iran is revealing. When Iran expanded its enrichment to 20 percent in 2010 to produce fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor – which, ironically, the United States had given Iran in the late 1960s as part of the Atoms for Peace program – Washington pointed to the move as further evidence of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons ambitions.

State Department spokesperson Philip Crowley said on February 11, 2010, that Iran’s decision to begin enriching to 20 percent “further solidifies… our impression and that of the international community that Iran’s nuclear intentions are anything but peaceful.” At the UN Security Council, then-Ambassador Susan Rice argued that Iran’s decision moved it “closer to weapons-grade material,” as she made the case for new UN sanctions against Tehran.

Now, Trump wants Congress to approve a deal with Saudi Arabia that gives the kingdom access to precisely that technology – but with far fewer inspections – while bombing Iran to prevent it from having any enrichment at all.

Keep reading

Trump floats renaming Strait of Hormuz to ‘Trump Strait’

resident Donald Trump on Wednesday floated renaming the Strait of Hormuz to the “Trump Strait” amid the ongoing war with Iran.

“Now that we have it under U.S.A. control, should we change the name Hormuz Strait to TRUMP STRAIT??? Like America itself, it would be ‘hotter’ than ever before!” he posted on Truth Social.

The Strait of Hormuz is the critical waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea. Its name likely derives from the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda, which was once widely worshiped in the region before the rise of Islam.

Trump has increasingly been willing to rename geographic landmarks in symbolic rebuke of his diplomatic or military adversaries. Earlier in his term, he renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” and last month renamed Lake Ontario to “Lake America.”

Few nations have embraced the changes, which he enacted via executive order.

Keep reading

The Iran War’s Costly Cycle of Retaliation

On August 30, U.S. forces struck two Iranian missile launchers on Larak Island near the Strait of Hormuz, saying the systems posed a threat to shipping. Iran answered by launching ballistic missiles at U.S. forces in Jordan. The exchange revived a seemingly simple question: What is the next response supposed to change? In the war with Iran, the relationship between military action and political results is neither linear nor predictable. A strike may destroy a target while changing Tehran’s calculations and triggering costs elsewhere. For Washington, the issue is therefore not simply choosing the next target, but determining whether each action moves the United States closer to a political objective or merely creates the conditions for another round.

The problem lies in the gap between the geography of an attack and the geography of its consequences. The United States can choose where to apply force, but it cannot exercise the same control over where it will bear the resulting cost. An attack in Iran can lead to pressure on U.S. forces elsewhere in the region, threats to partners and allies, disruption of shipping, and higher energy costs. Recent fighting around the Strait of Hormuz has shown how quickly military exchanges can spill into maritime traffic and oil markets. A limited operation can therefore acquire a reach far beyond its initial target.

That does not mean Washington should avoid using force. Deterrence without the ability to impose costs has little credibility, and failing to respond can also carry risks. If Tehran concludes that U.S. threats will not be enforced, it may judge further action to be less costly. The real choice is not between “responding” and “not responding,” but between responses that serve a defined political purpose and those that simply sustain the cycle. A credible response must impose a meaningful cost while avoiding a situation in which Washington has to strike again merely to prove the credibility of the previous strike.

This is why the meaning of “response” becomes more complicated once force is used. If Washington attacks to restore deterrence, success depends not only on the damage inflicted on Iran but on what Tehran does afterward and what new obligations the United States assumes. If Iran retaliates against U.S. forces, threatens allied infrastructure, or disrupts vital regional routes, Washington’s next decision becomes less independent. Force protection, allied defense, and freedom of navigation all enter the calculation. Each mission may be defensible on its own, but together they can create commitments that were not part of the original objective.

The costs of conflict are therefore generated well beyond the battlefield. Greater threats to U.S. personnel require more protection and readiness. Greater risks to partners increase pressure for additional security support. Insecurity along shipping routes can raise the costs of trade and energy. Even if Washington retains the operational upper hand, it may simultaneously enlarge the strategic responsibilities it must carry. Tactical success can be measured by whether a target was destroyed; strategic success must be measured by whether the United States emerges safer, with more freedom of action and fewer – not more – obligations.

Keep reading

Has Netanyahu Undermined the US?

Netanyahu, I believe, is a sick individual. In 2024, in his Knesset speech, Netanyahu said: “I’ve been warning about Iran for 30 years.”  It was reported on March 3rd, during a visit to a site struck by an Iranian missile, Netanyahu stated: “We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember—and we act.”

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God gives King Saul a specific, direct order to carry out this command. The prophet Samuel relays the message: “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. ‘”

The harshness of the command in 1 Samuel has disturbed Jewish scholars for centuries, leading to various interpretations that move beyond a literal call for genocide. If Netanyahu believes that genocide is the command of God, that is NOT in the self-interest of the United States. He knows you cannot accomplish regime change from the air. This is the very first time when we are in a partnership with another country who is really calling the shots here where the interests of Netanyahu are by no means the same national interest of the United States.

This Iran War is Netanyahu’s war, not America’s. He is consumed with hatred and he will NEVER stop because he sees only total annihalation of Persia. This has been an ancient feud that goes back thousands of years. We should NOT be involved because Netanyahu will NEVER accept peace so this war will NEVER see a resolution while it is draining the resources of the USA leaving the country vulnerable on a grand scale. The US can be defeated conventionally because of Netanyahu.

Let me make this very clear. The US has bombed the hell out of Iran to the point that the stockpile of conventional weapons has been seriously depleted. I warned from the outset, if I was on the other side of the table, I would use this war to drain the US as we have used Ukraine to weaken Russia. There is no way to win this war. Iran cannot be bombed into oblivion. Sources familiar with internal data state that the US has fired a vast number of its most advanced long-range missiles. Reports suggest that almost ALL of the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and the newer PrSM have been used during the campaign. These are costly, land-based missiles valued at well over $1 million each.

It would take boots on the ground to secure the Strait of Hormuz meaning you must occupy 50 miles inland on each side of the Strait permanently. Anyone who is NOT biased can see Netanyahu has dragged us into his endless war trying to fulfill 1 Samuel 15:2-3.

Keep reading

Iran Targets Marine Barracks In Jordan, Sends Drones On Bahrain & Kuwait, After Trump’s New Strikes

Iran Targets Marine Barracks in Jordan, Drones Sent on Bahrain, Kuwait

Iranian state media is saying that the military retaliation is ongoing, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force announcing that it launched a heavy ballistic missile attack targeting the US Marine barracks at Camp Titin, located near the Gulf of Aqaba in Jordan – which is at a significant distance, in the country’s far southwest corner. State media sources further detail:

According to the IRGC, the strike destroyed multiple military installations and attack helicopters, inflicting heavy casualties on U.S. forces. The operation was executed as the second wave of retaliatory actions under the code name “Ya Rasul Allah.”

And more via state WANA News Agency: “The IRGC stated that the action was carried out in retaliation for a U.S. strike on a residential home during a wedding ceremony in Sirik, which resulted in nearly 50 civilians killed or injured, including children.” Iranian claims of US casualties will as usual be hard to verify, but CENTCOM has said no casualties have resulted, per news wires:

US officials says no US casualties from Iranian attack on facilities in Jordan so far

In the wake of the US CENTCOM campaign, which may still be ongoing, Iran’s Hormozgan grid is under blackout. Further damage is likely to be assessed and publicized in the coming hours. Bahrain, Kuwait also targeted:

  • Iran’s army launched drone attacks on the US base in Bahrain, according to Fars News Agency
  • Kuwait Army says air defenses are confronting attacks by hostile drones
  • Jordan intercepts 10 ballistic missiles from Iran, three fell in remote areas: army

Initial unconfirmed footage now widely circulating of alleged IRGC attack on Jordan base…

Iranian Retaliation on regional Bases Begins

Iran is already hitting back, according to some early reports of what looks to be their latest retaliation, despite President Trump having earlier warned the Islamic Republic will be hit harder if it responds.

“If the failed Nation of Iran retaliates for this very justified attack, they will be hit again at a much harder and higher level, but it will not be the biggest attack of them all, that is waiting in the wings and, when it is over, there will be very little left of the Islamic Republic of Iran!” he stated earlier.

The White House indicated it is focused on taking out IRGC targets. But this has triggered the expected reaction:

  • Fars: Some Arab sources report that an explosion was heard in Jordan; several explosions were heard from American bases in Jordan
  • IRGC says US attacks will tighten the lock on the Strait of Hormuz
  • Explosion heard in Erbil, Iraq, reports Fars

The last tit-for-tat instances also saw US bases in Jordan targeted.

One Atlantic Council analyst points out the obvious – today’s action is yet another indication that the administration still does not understand how the Iranian government and leadership thinks (unless the intent is actual runaway escalation). Danny Citrinowicz writes:

Threatening Tehran with even more devastating strikes if it retaliates is unlikely to prevent an Iranian response. In fact, it may do the opposite. From Tehran’s perspective, failing to respond to a direct U.S. attack would undermine the very deterrence equation Iran has spent months trying to establish. The Iranian leadership believes it must demonstrate that American military action carries a price. That means Iran is likely to retaliate and it may even conclude that a broader or more painful response is necessary precisely to rebuild deterrence against future U.S. attacks.

This is the fundamental problem with Washington’s approach: it assumes that sufficiently strong threats will convince Iran to back down. But Tehran may draw exactly the opposite conclusion, meaning that backing down under threat would invite additional American strikes. Threats will not solve this problem. If Washington wants to prevent another cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation, it needs a political strategy for ending the confrontation. Otherwise, each side will continue using force to restore deterrence after the previous round — creating an escalation cycle that becomes increasingly difficult to control.

Keep reading