Tag: iran

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

Trump Mulling New ‘Limited’ Strike Package, After Iranian Attack On Jordan Base

New reporting from Axios: “President Trump and his senior aides have been considering waging limited strikes in the Strait of Hormuz to prevent Iran from reconstituting its radar and missile capabilities to attack ships, according to three U.S. officials.”

This suggests that once again when US ‘bad options’ tighten related to Iran and the Hormuz crisis, there is still this (bad) idea among decision-makers that the Pentagon can just ‘bomb its way out’ of a crisis that’s of Washington’s own making. Such an assumption has already been tried and tested several times before, amid what is now six months into the war.

“The plan, which was developed over the past week by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and supported by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, had not been approved by Trump ahead of this weekend’s exchange of fire with Iran,” Axios continues. “But he could greenlight it after the new escalation.”

And still this reported new potential escalation is being presented by Axios as if it’s somehow the US fully in the driver’s seat, when in reality this continues to be a “bombing campaign in search of a strategy”. More from Axios:

  • One U.S. official said the idea behind the plan is to reduce the risk of Iranian attacks on oil tankers, U.S. Navy ships and Air Force aircraft — to “mow the lawn,” as this person put it.
  • A White House said: “The President retains all options at his disposal. The Iranians want to make a deal, but they are always a day late and a dollar short.”

This comes as some top generals have taken the ultra-rare action of leaking their views of this to the press. “Several U.S. military leaders have advised Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that prolonging large-scale operations against Iran is unsustainable and risks weakening their ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the U.S. homeland, according to people familiar with a recent assessment prepared for the Pentagon chief,” wrote the Washington Post on Sunday.

More latest from Trump (via Newsquawk):

US President Trump says Iran strikes will be limited; Strait of Hormuz is in extremely good shape; A lot of oil coming out of Hormuz; Ships came through Hormuz last night with Navy assist.

The Iranians meanwhile appear to be ready for the possibility of renewed dialogue, but they also certainly don’t appear to be “begging” – as Trump has maintained. “The US must return to its commitments and abide by the terms of the memorandum; only then can we exit this situation,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Telegram Monday.

Keep reading

Pete Hegseth: Militarism’s Ideologue

Reality doesn’t always line up with our wishes. For Pete Hegseth, this lesson has been learned the hard way. Six months into his war with Iran, top military officials are warning the Secretary of Defense that prolonged fighting would be “unsustainable,” according to new reporting from The Washington Post.

These officials are echoing sentiments that have been repeated for months within the administration. Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had advised the White House before the conflict that a large-scale military confrontation with Iran posed serious risks, particularly because of the U.S.’ depleted munitions stockpiles and a lack of support from regional partners.

Rather than heed these warnings, Washington foreign policy elites chose to proceed with a reckless disregard for the facts, guided by an ideological drive to reshape the world in our image – or, perhaps more accurately, Israel’s. Pete Hegseth is one such ideologue, as demonstrated by his rhetorical record throughout the conflict.

The administration’s entire approach to this war has been stylistically Hegsethian. The tirades against the press, the administration’s unceasing – and undue – confidence, and the rigorous enforcement of a strict narrative are all hallmarks of Pete Hegseth’s brutish approach, rather than the calculated strategy one may expect to see from Marco Rubio or JD Vance.

Hegseth’s style plays to the instincts of an older generation of Republican voters, one which believes that to even question the military is to commit a grave offense. Older cohorts of conservatives – which tend to be the Republican Party’s most consistent base –  are fervently supportive of the war.

As soon as the first bombs were dropped, the narrative was enforced. The case for war was not an intellectually rigorous one, but this is a common feature of government propaganda. It primarily exists not to convince the American public to support a policy, but to emotionally manipulate them. To this end, the war’s initiators must act with a level of bravado and confidence capable of convincing the average person that “this person knows what he’s doing.” It doesn’t mean he does, however. This distortion has been perfectly embodied by the rocky past six months at Hegseth’s Pentagon.

Hegseth has built a reputation for his aggressive style. During press conferences in the Iran war’s early stage, he made a habit out of using emotionally charged language to evoke an “us vs. them” mentality within Americans. On March 2, Hegseth called this war “our retribution,” saying “the regime who chanted ‘death to America’ and ‘death to Israel’ was gifted death from America, and death from Israel.” In a press conference a few days later, Hegseth seemed to fetishize violence, describing the U.S. operation as “death and destruction from the sky, all day long.”

In a display of his grotesque lust for power, Hegseth also said “we are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.”

There has been a severe shortage of seriousness from this administration in its messaging on this conflict. In a 60 Minutes appearance just days after the war was launched, Hegseth shrugged off concerns about the risks of this engagement, saying “nobody’s putting us in danger.” He followed this dismissive statement with an even more unsettling one, threatening that “the only ones that need to be worried right now are Iranians that think they’re going to live.”

Keep reading

Bezos-Owned Washington Post Publishes CLASSIFIED Pentagon Orders Book During Active Combat With Iran — Pentagon Calls It a Crime and a “Betrayal of the Force”

The far-left Washington Post just did what the legacy media always does when American troops are in harm’s way and a Republican is running the Pentagon.

They published material from a classified Secretary of Defense Orders Book, the document that maps warships, aircraft, weapons systems, and personnel worldwide, and dressed it up as a hit piece on Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

The Washington Post reported Sunday that several senior military leaders warned War Secretary Pete Hegseth that maintaining a force of more than 50,000 American troops in the Middle East is unsustainable and could weaken the United States’ ability to respond to threats elsewhere.

The newspaper acknowledged that its reporting was based on information contained in the classified Aug. 14 edition of the Secretary of Defense Orders Book, or SDOB.

The classified orders book reportedly details the worldwide availability and allocation of American warships, aircraft, weapons systems, and military personnel. It also contains sensitive assessments submitted by America’s senior commanders.

According to the Post, some troops deployed to the Middle East were ordered to remain through September, while others could remain into 2027.

Four senior commanders reportedly submitted formal “non-concurs” expressing disagreement with the proposed extensions:

  • Adm. Daryl Caudle, Chief of Naval Operations
  • Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, Commander of U.S. European Command
  • Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Commander of U.S. Southern Command
  • Adm. Samuel Paparo, Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

A “non-concur” does not mean that a commander is refusing to follow an order. It records a commander’s professional disagreement while acknowledging that the order will still be executed.

Washington Post military affairs reporter Dan Lamothe eagerly amplified the purported contents of the classified document.

“Four-stars all non-concurring with prolonging operations against Iran as they are into 2027, per this Washington Post exclusive,” Lamothe wrote, before listing the four commanders.

But DataRepublican, whose real name is Jennica Pounds and who began serving as a Special Government Employee at the Department of War in July, fired back with a brutal response.

DataRepublican argued that the commanders’ assessments were not the most alarming part of the story. The real scandal, she said, was that someone apparently handed information from one of the Pentagon’s most sensitive force-allocation documents to the Washington Post.

Keep reading

Trump Says Iran’s Oil Hub Kharg Island Is Being Blown “TO SMITHEREENS”

President Trump issued a stunning message Sunday night indicating that Iran’s most important oil-export hub was under devastating attack.

“Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!! President DJT,” Trump announced on Truth Social.

Trump’s post included a dramatic AI-generated video depicting explosions across the island.

Neither the White House nor the Department of War had publicly confirmed a new attack on Kharg Island’s oil facilities. Reuters reported that Iranian state media had also issued no immediate response.

Keep reading

Netanyahu Admits He Spent ‘Close To 1,000 Hours’ On American Television To Bring The U.S. Into War With Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly admitted in a recent Hebrew-language television interview that he spent close to 1,000 hours on American television over nearly four decades to build the political consensus in the United States that ultimately resulted in the U.S.-Israel war on Iran.

“It also took a long time to bring America to this understanding,” Netanyahu said in the interview, which aired on Israeli Channel 14 and was widely clipped and shared on social media with English subtitles. “I was able to do that because I had close to a thousand hours on American television.”

The admission is remarkable for a sitting head of government — an explicit acknowledgment that sustained, long-running foreign lobbying of American public opinion, conducted through U.S. broadcast and cable networks over four decades, was a deliberate strategy to shape U.S. foreign policy toward war with Iran.

Netanyahu framed the effort as a patient, decades-long project. He has appeared on virtually every major American television outlet since the 1980s — Fox News, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNBC, MSNBC — frequently warning of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, repeatedly describing Iran as being “minutes away” from a nuclear weapon, and pressing successive U.S. administrations to treat Tehran as an existential threat requiring direct military action.

The war Netanyahu spent decades lobbying for began on February 28, 2026, when U.S. and Israeli forces launched coordinated strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and multiple senior IRGC officials. According to a New York Times investigation, Netanyahu made a “hard sell” to President Trump in the White House Situation Room on February 11, arguing that Iran was ripe for regime change and that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could bring an end to the Islamic Republic.

The CBS News 60 Minutes interview with Netanyahu in May 2026 — his first U.S. broadcast interview since the war began — offered additional texture. Netanyahu confirmed that Trump had told him “I want to go in there” regarding the removal of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpiles. When asked whether the war was over, Netanyahu said significant work remained: nuclear material still needed to be removed, enrichment sites dismantled, proxy networks dismantled.

The 1,000-hours claim, now viral across social media platforms, has drawn significant reaction. Critics describe it as a candid admission of systematic foreign influence over American foreign policy decision-making — influence conducted through the open megaphone of U.S. network television, in addition to scores of visits to American officials. The pattern Netanyahu describes — sustained narrative-building through American media over decades — is a textbook soft-power influence campaign, conducted in plain sight, aimed directly at shaping the conditions under which the United States would enter a war.

Analysts have noted the irony: while foreign influence in American politics is typically treated as a covert threat to be countered, Netanyahu’s approach operated entirely in the open, on American airwaves, with the enthusiastic cooperation of American broadcast networks that granted him access for decades.

Keep reading

US Looks To Revive ‘Prize Courts’ For Iranian Oil Seizures

The US government is exploring an unusual legal route for dealing with Iranian oil and ships captured as part of its blockade: bringing back a wartime maritime system that has barely been used for generations, according to Bloomberg.

The Justice Department, working with the Pentagon, is preparing to use prize law, which historically allowed courts to decide whether vessels and cargo captured during armed conflict could legally become property of the United States. The mechanism was once commonplace in naval warfare but largely disappeared from American practice after the 19th century and has been dormant since World War II.

The appeal for the administration is largely practical. At present, the government generally relies on civil forfeiture to take ownership of vessels accused of sanctions violations or other offenses. Those cases can become complicated and slow, particularly when shipping companies, creditors, terrorism victims or other parties assert competing rights to the ship or its cargo. A prize proceeding could potentially narrow those disputes and allow captured oil to be sold more quickly, with the proceeds going to the US Treasury.

Bloomberg writes that Houston is being considered as a central venue for these cases. The Southern District of Texas has jurisdiction over a major port and sits alongside the country’s largest concentration of petrochemical infrastructure, giving it the capacity to receive and store substantial quantities of crude. US Attorney Aaron Reitz, whose office is working with DOJ officials in Washington, said the department is “now reviving” prize courts, describing the concept as an “ancient body of maritime law.”

The effort comes as Washington looks for additional ways to put economic pressure on Iran. US forces have already intercepted Iranian-owned or Iran-linked vessels since the blockade was imposed in April. Using prize law could turn those captures into a more direct financial tool: ships and oil deemed lawful prizes could be liquidated, potentially generating revenue while depriving Iran of valuable exports.

Supporters also see a strategic purpose beyond the money. Reviving the system would reinforce the message that the US considers the blockade a serious wartime measure rather than simply another sanctions regime. It could also make it more difficult for neutral commercial vessels to continue transporting goods that Washington believes support Iran.

But there is considerable uncertainty over how a centuries-old framework would operate under modern international law. “This really is a historical area of law that is not tested in modern times,” maritime attorney Allison Luzwick said. Courts could be asked to determine whether the current conflict provides sufficient legal grounds for invoking prize authority at all, particularly given questions surrounding congressional authorization for the hostilities.

Keep reading

Trump Has Made Up to $15M in Oil and Gas Stock Rise Spurred in Part by Iran War

President Donald Trump’s deeply unpopular war on Iran has helped inject millions of dollars into his personal wealth while saddling everyday Americans with a $72 billion bill, a new report reveals.

Amid the war, oil and gas companies’ stocks have skyrocketed in value as companies report staggering earnings; ExxonMobil recently reported its profits doubling year-over-year, while Chevron’s net income has increased nearly 400 percent as a result of the disruptions to the global oil market. In all, oil and gas companies reported $125 billion in profits in the first half of 2026, with a corresponding jump in stock value across the fossil fuel industry.

As a result of that rise, Trump may have profited as much as $15.5 million, and netted at least $4.6 million, from his oil and gas holdings this year, Democrats on Congress’s Joint Economic Committee (JEC) found in a report this week. In all, his oil and gas holdings went from a maximum value of $45.5 million to as much as $61 million.

The analysis was based on stocks that Trump held at the end of 2025, including Exxon, Chevron, and seven other oil and gas companies. His profits may be even higher than the report suggests, as Trump bought additional oil and gas stocks in the first three months of 2026 worth up to $3.6 million. These were bought in a period when the U.S. seized control of Venezuela’s oil profits and launched a war on Iran that has sent oil prices sky-high.

Meanwhile, the rise in energy prices has cost Americans an additional $71.5 billion in gas prices at the pump, the Democrats found, or an average of over $600 a household. That’s before taking into account the hike in prices for things like groceries and other associated costs like increased mortgage rates caused by the war.

Keep reading