Tag: iran

Trump’s Iran War Raises a Midterm Question: Who Decides When America Goes to War?

On July 23, President Donald Trump threatened to carry out his “biggest attack yet” on Iran after nearly two weeks of renewed U.S. airstrikes. That same day, the House voted 214–208 to direct the president to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran, while a parallel Senate effort failed 47–49. The contrast sharpened a question that has followed the conflict from the start: why can any president bring the United States deeper into another Middle Eastern war with so little meaningful involvement from Congress? The answer reaches beyond one administration, party, or operation to the functioning of American democracy itself.

Washington has long debated individual interventions while paying less attention to the expanding presidential authority that made them possible. Trump did not create this system; he inherited it. His presidency, however, exposed how much war-making power has accumulated in the executive branch and how far the country has moved from the constitutional balance the founders envisioned.

The Constitution’s principle is clear: decisions about war should not rest with one person. The president is commander in chief, but Congress received the authority to declare war because the framers feared concentrated power. Having lived under monarchy, they believed sending citizens to war required public debate, legislative consent, and political accountability.

That balance eroded from Korea through Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and numerous counterterrorism missions. Presidents claimed wider discretion to use force without explicit authorization; Congress sometimes delegated authority and sometimes declined to challenge its use. The presidency consequently grew stronger in war-making while Congress retreated toward the sidelines.

This was not one party’s project. Republicans expanded executive authority, and Democrats preserved it. Administrations criticized presidential overreach while out of power, then retained its advantages in office. Executive war power thus became one of Washington’s genuinely bipartisan projects.

Reducing the problem to Trump therefore misses the larger danger. Critics see his reliance on instinct, personal judgment, and a small advisory circle as uniquely risky; supporters call the same qualities decisive leadership. Neither view changes the constitutional principle: a democratic system should not depend on the personality of whoever occupies the Oval Office. Even capable presidents can make catastrophic mistakes when meaningful oversight disappears.

History demonstrates the risk. Few expected Vietnam to consume a decade of national life. Iraq began as a limited mission with defined objectives but cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, reshaped the Middle East, and left lasting regional consequences. Wars rarely begin by announcing how long or expansive they will become.

The United States now possesses unmatched military capabilities, global intelligence networks, and the ability to project force almost anywhere within hours. That makes executive flexibility valuable, but democratic oversight even more necessary. The faster a president can act, the stronger the institutions checking that power must be.

Keep reading

Trump Threatens To Jail Arms Shortage ‘Leakers’

President Trump on Thursday threatened “leakers” with jail time over reports about dwindling US military stockpiles as a result of the Iran war, and claimed the US had plenty of munitions available.

“The US has massive amounts of ‘munitions,’ especially of certain types. Additionally, large amounts are being manufactured and shipped to the US as needed,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“Defense companies are building the largest number of plants and factories in our country’s history. The ‘leakers’ of these treasonous statements are being hunted down,” the president added.

Some of the most significant reports about the shortage of advanced munitions didn’t come from media reports but from analysis published by the think tank the Center for International Studies (CSIS), which used publicly available data to produce its estimates.

CSIS found that the US has used about 60% of its advanced Patriot air defense missiles and about half of its interceptors for the THAAD missile defense system, though sources told CNN that the US had actually used about 80% of its THAADs during the war.

While Trump says that US arms makers are working to produce more munitions, the current rate of weapons use far exceeds the rate at which they can be produced, and it will take years to significantly increase production.

Media reports have also said that the US has used up nearly all of its ATACMS missiles and Precision-Strike Missiles, which were both used extensively in strikes on Iran.

Keep reading

Camp David Clash: Trump Hammered Hegseth For Misleading Him On Arms Supply, WaPo Reports

Following reports that US forces have “used up virtually all” of their precision, long-range missiles in futile attempts to first trigger an Iranian regime change and then to compel Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz, now comes reporting that an angry President Trump confronted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in recent days, accusing the Pentagon of misleading him on critical munitions shortages that leave Trump increasingly powerless in the five-month-old fiasco of a war. 

According to sources cited by the Washington Post, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to concern about retaliation, Trump’s ire erupted alongside a cabinet meeting held Friday at Camp David. Trump expressed consternation that he’d been assured that the weapon shortage “had been fixed” when that is apparently far from true.     

According to “multiple officials” who — reading between the lines — clearly seem to have had it with Fox News talking-head-suddenly-turned-Defense-secretary, Hegseth defended his own actions and tried redirecting the blame to Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg, a billionaire GOP donor whom Trump plucked out of his role as co-CEO of Cerberus Capital Management to give him the number-two job at the Pentagon. Hegseth was said to have thrown Feinberg under the bus for both the shortages and failing to keep Trump fully informed.  

The officials characterized Trump as increasingly exasperated by Hegseth, whom they describe as one of the most enthusiastic supporters of launching a war on Iran, saying he persuaded Trump that victory would come quickly and easily. The war that the administration once projected to last three or four weeks is now in its sixth month. Iran has used both its sophisticated missile technology and its inexpensive but huge arsenal of drones to wreak havoc on US and allied forces around the Gulf. Hammered by a shock and awe campaign peppered with the multiple incidents involving mass casualties among innocents — including scores of elementary schoolgirls — the Iranian people have rallied around the Islamic regime, for all its faults. At least 18 US service members lay dead, several hundred have been wounded, and some estimates of the war’s cost to date exceed $100 billion.  

Keep reading

Fresh Panic As Pentagon Has Used ‘Virtually All’ Its Long-Range Precision Missiles On Iran

US forces “used up virtually all” of their precision, long-range missiles during the course of the Iran war, and during the earlier heavy US-Israeli campaign of Operation Epic Fury, Reutersreported Tuesday.

This has raised serious “concerns about the military’s ​readiness for future conflicts,” informed sources told the outlet. In particular it is the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) which are said to be running critically low.

“Washington has used virtually all of these weapons,” two sources told Reuters, after several media reports and think tank studies had already sounded the alarm over dwindling missiles amid both the Iran war and in the years-long process of supplying Ukraine. Low Patriot defense missile supplies have also been a persisting issue in the headlines.

They are costly and time-consuming in terms of manufacturing replacements. For example a single ATACMS munition costs about $1 million.

One immediate consequence could be that if heavy bombardment of Iran starts up again, the US would have to conduct riskier piloted aerial bombings – instead relying on longer range precision strikes afforded by the land-based systems at safer distances.

And another, somewhat obvious consequence, is highlighted in the following: “But as ​the war drags on, the three people familiar with the matter expressed worry that the falling missile supplies could limit the U.S. ability to deter adversaries, including Russia and China.”

The report added: “A fourth person ⁠familiar with the matter said that while Central Command — which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East — has nearly used up the land-based missiles it had before the war began, it has been able to reload from U.S. military supplies elsewhere in the ​world.”

President Trump has of late responded to these now widespread reports of badly depleted advanced munitions, explaining that “Our defense companies are, at this moment, making more munitions than they have ever made before, ​in addition to expanding their plants and equipment at record levels.”

Additionally,  Secretary of War Pete Hegseth took to social media to refute the report, calling it false news.

“That banner is NOT TRUE, CNN. Shame on you,” the Pentagon chief said in a post on X. “We don’t hate the Fake News media enough.”

Hegseth was specifically referring to a CNN on-screen banner that read: “Sources: U.S. has used nearly 80% of key missile interceptors in Iran war, top commanders warn stockpiles dangerously low.”

Keep reading

Before Hormuz, There Was Suez: What Trump Can Learn From Eisenhower

Oman and Iran appear close to a temporary arrangement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, potentially providing both an exit from the current round of fighting and the foundation for a more durable maritime order. Washington should welcome such an agreement – even if it acknowledges a degree of Iranian authority in administering traffic through the strait – because US interest dictates that open and non-discriminatory passage must be given priority over control.

The emerging formula would reportedly divide responsibility for the shipping lanes. Vessels entering the Persian Gulf would travel through waters administered by Iran, while outbound traffic would pass through an Omani-administered route. Iran would be notified of departing vessels and, while this has not yet been discussed, Tehran appears open to also ensuring that Oman would be notified of incoming traffic. Tehran and Muscat may collect and share fees for specified security and environmental services, although this sensitive issue has not yet been settled. The negotiations remain fluid, and any agreement is reportedly linked to the lifting of the American blockade on Iranian ports.

The arrangement would represent a slight climbdown by Tehran. Iran’s earlier position would have required traffic in both directions to pass through some portion of Iranian waters as well as Omani waters. That would have brought even ships already inside the Persian Gulf under an Iranian-administered transit system. The emerging division of lanes would give Oman primary responsibility for outbound shipping and limit the universe of vessels requiring Iranian approval or coordination.

If successful – and if Washington accepts it – the agreement could help end the present fighting. It remains unclear whether that would restore the previous American-Iranian memorandum of understanding or require a new framework. Nor does it in and of itself move the needle on two other major stumbling blocks: Iran’s demand for a regional ceasefire and Washington’s demands on Iran’s nuclear activities.

The Trump administration will likely receive strong pushback from hawkish elements in Washington and Israel who will complain over the arrangement’s de facto acceptance and legitimization of Iran (and Oman’s) management of the Strait.

But this critique is borne out of a confusion of what the US’s actual core interest in the Strait is: The free and predictable flow of commerce or preventing the ability of a hostile power to assert control.

The Trump administration has increasingly framed the objective as preventing Iran from “controlling” the strait. Yet the central American interest in strategic waterways has historically been less about who administers them than about whether ships can pass through them freely, predictably and without discrimination. Preventing a hostile state from acquiring coercive leverage has generally been a means of preserving passage, not an end that supersedes passage itself.

That hierarchy of interests matters. If reopening the strait requires acknowledging that Iran possesses some capacity to regulate traffic in waters along its coast, Washington should not reject an agreement merely because it fails to preserve the appearance of unqualified American dominance.

The Suez crisis provides the clearest example. In 1956, Egypt’s president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal Company, displacing the British- and French-controlled corporation that had operated one of the world’s most important commercial arteries. Britain and France regarded nationalization not merely as an economic injury but as a strategic humiliation and, together with Israel, invaded Egypt.

President Dwight Eisenhower refused to support them. After rejecting the Anglo-French invasion, Eisenhower’s administration did not make restoration of British or international ownership a condition for accepting Egypt’s continued administration of the canal. Instead, Washington opposed the invasion and pressed for a diplomatic arrangement that would preserve international access. The applicable legal regime emphasized the canal’s free use by ships of all countries on equal terms, while leaving Egypt responsible for administering and defending the waterway.

Egyptian control was not the same as unrestricted Egyptian discretion. The distinction was crucial. Washington could accept Egyptian sovereignty over the canal while insisting that sovereignty be exercised within rules guaranteeing nondiscriminatory passage. The overriding American interest was not which flag flew over the canal authority, but whether the canal remained open under internationally accepted rules.

Keep reading

America’s Middle East Bases: An Imperial Burden

By all conventional measures, America is losing the war with Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has survived the U.S.-Israeli regime change effort, and it seems as though the hardline factions in Iran have been empowered. They also maintain their stockpiles of drones and missiles, while the U.S. is running dangerously low on crucial munitions.

Perhaps the most tangible sign of strategic defeat for the U.S. comes in the form of destroyed bases. Throughout the conflict, Iran has dealt severe blows to U.S. bases across the region, resulting in 18 troops having been killed and over 600 sustaining injuries.

A predictable outcome

Iran’s ability to touch American bases across the Middle East was not surprising to many of those advocating against this war. In fact, it was one of the foremost reasons to show restraint. In August 2025, Dr. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned that in the case of a renewed conflict, Iran would likely act with much less restraint than they did during the 12-day War.

“It’s not going to be like last time,” Dr. Parsi explained, “the Iranians may this time around strike at U.S. bases in a manner that they didn’t last time. Last time, as one Pentagon official said, it was a polite response because it was all about ending the war. This time around, it’s likely going to be much worse.”

Dr. Parsi also expressed concern about American defensive systems, saying “we know now that the Iranians have missile capabilities that can penetrate all layers of Israeli and American air defense systems and can lead to a large number of American deaths. So we will once again have Americans coming home from the Middle East in coffins.”

Tragically, these predictions have proven entirely correct.

From the early days of this war, the damage became apparent. The New York Times reported in late March that many American bases in the region had been rendered “all but uninhabitable.” The Iranians attacks have been effective at knocking out key defensive and communications infrastructure as well. All of this information has been intentionally underdiscussed by the Trump administration, in the hopes that Americans will buy their narrative that an easy U.S. victory has occurred.

Despite their decision to not inform the public of this troubling data, the risks are very real for troops still positioned in the region. Since the collapse of the Memorandum of Understanding, four U.S. soldiers have been killed, and roughly 100 have been injured by Iranian attacks.

Many of America’s bases in the Middle East simply weren’t prepared to face Iranian retaliation at the scale we’ve witnessed. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fighting occurred predominantly within the borders of the respective countries, so many U.S. military facilities weren’t designed to withstand extensive enemy fire.

Iran, however, is a much different story.

Keep reading

War With Iran: A Double-Edged Sword for the US Economy and Agriculture

The sharp swings in oil prices following the latest round of attacks and negotiations over safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz demonstrate that wars do not always reveal themselves first on the battlefield. Sometimes, their earliest signs appear on gas-station price boards, in transportation bills, and on the balance sheets of farmers standing thousands of miles from the front lines. Now that the confrontation between the United States and Iran has moved beyond pressure and deterrence and turned into direct military conflict, the issue is no longer limited to security calculations. It is about the real costs of war – costs increasingly borne by American farmers, truck drivers, and consumers.

The economic effects of this war are being transmitted through channels that are highly sensitive for Washington politically: energy markets, inflation, supply chains, and, above all, agriculture. A war that Trump justifies in the language of national security and displays of strength could, in practice, become a self-inflicted shock to the U.S. economy. That is the central contradiction: the most direct pressure is falling on the very social and economic constituency Trump has repeatedly claimed to defend – the American farm belt.

The Energy Shock, From Hormuz to American Farms

The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of global petroleum liquids consumption passes, now lies at the center of the conflict. Repeated surges and declines in oil prices show that even news of a temporary pause – or the possibility of renewed escalation – can shake the energy market. Higher fuel prices feed directly into transportation, production, and consumer-goods costs, adding to inflationary pressure. This also leaves monetary policymakers caught between controlling inflation and preventing a further slowdown in economic growth.

Market instability and direct military expenditures are rising as well. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan showed that the true cost of military conflict often extends far beyond initial estimates. Brown University’s Costs of War Project has placed the cost of the post-9/11 wars at approximately $8 trillion. A war with Iran, particularly if it becomes prolonged or expands geographically, could generate new and uncertain financial commitments. Yet one of its deepest and least visible consequences may be felt not on Wall Street, but on American farms.

Modern American agriculture is intensely dependent on energy. Diesel powers farm machinery; natural gas is a primary input in the production of nitrogen fertilizers; and gasoline and transportation fuels move crops from farms to markets. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has repeatedly shown that higher energy prices increase production costs and reduce farm income, ultimately affecting food prices.

The pressure is even more severe in the fertilizer market. The production of ammonia and urea is directly dependent on natural gas, while disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has constrained global supplies of raw materials and fertilizer. During the first weeks of the war, urea prices nearly doubled, leaving American farmers to confront fuel-price increases and supply shortages at the same time. Under such conditions, corn production, which requires more nitrogen fertilizer, becomes especially vulnerable. Farmers may be forced to choose among reducing planted acreage, switching crops, or accepting substantially higher costs.

Keep reading

MI5 directors who plotted IRGC ‘terror’ ban exposed in leaked emails

Leaked emails reviewed by The Grayzone show both a current and former MI5 director secretly lobbied for the British government’s move to label the IRGC a terrorist entity as well as the UK’s adoption of the draconian National Security Act.

The correspondence reviewed here offers extraordinary insight into how the MI5 influences Downing Street and manipulates public perceptions of dubious or non-existent threats.

On July 13, the government of former Prime Minister Keir Starmer officially listed the IRGC as a terrorist organization, citing supposed kidnapping and assassination plots by the Iranian military branch. Now, merely publishing Iranian-supplied casualty figures could be categorized as “terrorism,” potentially landing British citizens in prison for up to 14 years.

Leaked correspondence reviewed by The Grayzone reveals that when first proposed in 2023, the push to proscribe the Iranian military branch was coordinated among the former heads of British intelligence agency MI5. Those plotting the designation included the MI5’s current Director General Ken McCallum and previous Director General Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller – who was privately credited with the passage of Britain’s draconian National Security Act.

The spymasters appeared to view Labour’s then-Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper as a key ally in constricting civil liberties and convincing government officials to formally designate the IRGC a terrorist entity.

In private discussions, McCallum acknowledged the “direct operational benefit” of proscribing the IRGC was likely to be “modest.” The MI5 chief nonetheless considered it “sensible to contemplate” such powers, and potentially extending them to include a ban on supposedly state-affiliated factions such as the now-defunct Russian private military company Wagner.

McCallum’s behind-the-scenes lobbying of Cooper and Starmer was the culmination of a wider effort by veteran MI5 officials who’d sought to “help the opposition to be ready to govern” once they took office in July 2024. 

Starmer and his shadow cabinet proved highly receptive to clandestine approaches from McCallum and his veteran MI5 forebears. Meanwhile, McCallum deployed scaremongering about the supposed threat of China, Iran and Russia – frequently coordinated with Manningham-Buller – to justify ratcheting up budgets and powers for the spy agency, whose ultimate targets appear to be domestic dissidents.

Keep reading

Trump and Fauci: The Nefarious Tag Team Executing the Genetic Kill Switch on Humanity

The Genetic Kill Switch Introduction

We are living through the final act of a planned global genocide. According to my research findings, Donald Trump and Anthony Fauci are not adversaries — they are tag-team partners in a depopulation agenda that uses a binary weapon to trigger a genetic meltdown of the human race. (I’ll explain more below…)

The first component of this weapon is the spike protein contamination from mRNA injections, which Fauci orchestrated through gain-of-function bioweapons research at the Wuhan lab and laundered into so-called vaccines via Operation Warp Speed (pushed by Trump).

The second component is nuclear war, which Trump is likely to invoke to “finish the job” in Iran. The fallout of radioisotopes causes double-strand DNA breaks in human cells, and the spike protein has already suppressed DNA repair by 85–90%. Together, they form a kill switch that will melt down the genetic integrity of billions of humans and end humanity as we know it.

Here is how this unspeakable plan was set in motion, why the government lies about radiation risks, and what you can do to survive.

The Spike Protein Bio-Weapon: Fauci’s Contribution to Mass Genetic Contamination

Let’s trace the chain of command. Fauci, through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. Newly released documents show Fauci actively protected Daszak from federal scrutiny while suppressing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was a lab leak [1]. The result was a gain-of-function spike protein toxin.

As I have previously reported, the spike protein’s modified cleavage site was engineered into the mRNA, and that same synthetic spike is now being produced inside billions of human bodies via the so-called vaccines [2].

The genetic damage from these mRNA injections is catastrophic. A ground-breaking Swedish-Chinese study showed that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein impairs DNA damage repair and inhibits the BRCA1 and 53BP1 pathways [3]. In plain English, this means the spike protein suppresses the cell’s ability to fix broken DNA by 85 to 90 percent.

The result is turbo cancers, immune failure, and accelerated aging. On top of that, the mRNA shots are contaminated with bacterial DNA plasmids that can integrate into the human genome and trigger cancer [4][5]. This is not a vaccine, in other words — it’s a genetic bioweapon designed to contaminate the entire population and prepare every injected person for the nuclear “genetic meltdown” kill switch.

Trump’s Complicity: From Operation Warp Speed to Nuclear War

Trump cannot pretend to be innocent. He authorized emergency use of the mRNA injections, bragged about Operation Warp Speed, and repeatedly protected Fauci from prosecution. Emails have now revealed that Fauci and then-NIH director Francis Collins agreed to suppress the lab-leak theory for political reasons, and Trump’s administration did nothing to stop it [6]. In fact, Trump’s own FDA commissioner, Marty Makary, recently stated that Fauci was “100% involved” in a “massive” COVID origins cover-up [7]. Yet Trump never held Fauci accountable. Why?

Because they are co-conspirators. They answer to the same boss.

Now Trump is set to launch nuclear weapons in his desperate escalation of war with Iran or Russia. As of early 2026, Trump has escalated rhetoric against Russia, shortening a “50-day” warning to “10 to 12 days” and threatening strikes deep into Russian territory. This is a deliberate provocation designed to trigger a nuclear response that could kill up to 200 million Americans from the initial strikes alone.

The radiation from those bombs will circulate globally and cause double-strand DNA breaks, but the spike protein has already disabled the body’s repair machinery in billions of people. That means billions of human beings will die from genetic damage that could have otherwise been self-repaired if not for the presence of the spike protein, an engineered toxic and part of a binary weapon system targeting human genetic integrity.

Keep reading

Did Israeli And Or American-Linked Operatives Help Orchestrate Spain’s Migrant Crisis As Revenge For Sánchez’s Anti-Israel/Iran War Policy?

Thousands of migrants poured into Spain’s North African enclave of Ceuta this week, killing at least 18 and overwhelming local authorities. Spain’s Interior Ministry refused to declare a national emergency. And, Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon posted a tweet seen by 3.6 million people rubbing Spain’s nose in it.

That sequence of events may not be coincidental.

Geopolitical analyst Bruno Maçães — a former Portuguese Secretary of State for European Affairs — noted on X that analysts at Israeli-funded think tanks had explicitly argued in April 2026 that Israel should help Morocco take over Ceuta as direct retaliation against Spain. The Ynet News analysis Maçães cited framed Morocco’s longstanding territorial claim on Ceuta as a lever Israel could pull against Madrid for its anti-Israel foreign policy.

Keep reading