Tag: perpetual war

Trump Administration Goes After the Media for Negative Coverage of the Iran War

In recent days, senior Trump administration officials have increased their criticism and complaints about negative coverage of the US-Israeli war against Iran, with President Trump even suggesting certain media outlets could face “charges for treason.”

Trump made the comments in a long post on Truth Social put out on Sunday night, where he claimed that Iran has been feeding “false information” to the “Fake News media” and said fake AI videos were being circulated.

The president said there was a fake video that showed the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on fire. “The story was knowingly FAKE and, in a certain way, you can say that those Media Outlets that generated it should be brought up on Charges for TREASON for the dissemination of false information!” Trump wrote.

While a fake video of Abraham Lincoln was circulated on social media, there’s no indication that it was picked up by any major media outlets. The only media outlet President Trump named in his post was The Wall Street Journal, which he accused of “false reporting” over a report on five US Air Force refueling tankers being damaged by an Iranian missile strike in Saudi Arabia.

However, Trump also acknowledged that one tanker was damaged and that the other four were back in service, which doesn’t refute the Journal report since it said the aircraft were not fully destroyed and were being repaired.

“The five US Refueling Planes that were supposedly struck down and badly damaged, according to The Wall Street Journal’s false reporting, and others, are all in service, with the exception of one, which will soon be flying the skies,” Trump said.

The president also pointed to comments from Brendan Carr, the head of the Federal Communications Commission, who is threatening to revoke the licenses of news broadcasters for their coverage of the war in Iran. “I am so thrilled to see Brendan Carr … looking at the licenses of some of these Corrupt and Highly Unpatriotic ‘News’ Organizations,” he added.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has also complained that media outlets haven’t been “patriotic” enough in their coverage. “We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies,” Hegseth said at a press conference on Friday. “Yet some in this crew, in the press, just can’t stop. Allow me to make a few suggestions. People look up at the TV, and they see banners, they see headlines. I used to be in that business. And I know that everything is written intentionally.”

The US war chief continued, “For example, a banner or a headline: ‘Mideast war intensifies,’ splashing on the screen the last couple of days, alongside visuals of civilian or energy targets that Iran has hit, because that’s what they do. What should the banner read instead? How about, ‘Iran increasingly desperate,’ because they are. They know it and so do you, if it can be admitted.”

Hegseth described a headline that said the “war is widening” as fake despite the conflict spreading across the region. He suggested a “real headline” for an “actually patriotic press” could say “Iran shrinking, going underground,” though senior Iranian officials attended a public Quds Day march in Tehran that same day.

Keep reading

Trump threatens media with treason charges over Iran war coverage

US President Donald Trump has threatened media organizations with treason charges, accusing them of knowingly colluding with Iran to cast doubt on Washington’s decisive “victory.”

In a lengthy Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump alleged that “fake news” outlets had been spreading false information supposedly fabricated by Iran using artificial intelligence.

“The fact is, Iran is being decimated, and the only battles they ‘win’ are those that they create through AI, and are distributed by Corrupt Media Outlets,” Trump wrote.

Trump claimed that Tehran has circulated fabricated footage showing attacks on US military assets, including alleged strikes on refueling aircraft and naval vessels.

Keep reading

Israel systematically destroyed over 93 per cent of Gaza Strip cemeteries amid ongoing genocide

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor has documented that the Israeli army has destroyed 93.5 per cent of cemeteries in the Gaza Strip, either completely or partially, in the context of the ongoing genocide since October 2023.

The systematic targeting of graves through demolition and bulldozing constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law and reflects a deliberate pattern of erasure. These actions violate the sanctity of the dead, erase physical traces, inflict severe psychological and spiritual harm on the living, and ultimately undermine collective memory, severing historical ties between the population, their ancestors, and their land.

The Euro-Med Monitor team analyzed data from 62 official cemeteries across the Gaza Strip’s five governorates. It found that the Israeli army completely bulldozed and destroyed graves in 39 cemeteries (approximately 62.9 per cent of the total) and partially damaged 19 others (approximately 30.6 per cent). Only four cemeteries, or 6.4 per cent, remain intact.

These findings show that the widespread, direct destruction of cemeteries in the Gaza Strip was neither incidental to military operations nor justified by “military necessity.” Rather, it was a deliberate, planned effort to obstruct the identification and documentation of remains and to disrupt any subsequent procedures for identification, examination, or lawful exhumation. This constitutes a clear violation of international humanitarian law, which requires the respectful treatment of the dead, the protection and maintenance of graves, the recording of identity data, and the clear marking of burial sites to enable later identification.

The bulldozing and vandalism have led to the mixing of remains and the destruction of graves, markers, and headstones, making identification of the deceased nearly impossible, given Gaza’s limited resources. This deliberately deprives families of their humanitarian and religious right to know the fate and burial sites of their loved ones and to visit them, causing profound and lasting psychological and spiritual harm.

These acts, beyond constituting grave violations of the rules protecting the dead and cemeteries, fall within the scope of international criminalization when committed as outrages upon human dignity. This includes “outrages upon personal dignity,” a term which extends to the treatment of the deceased.

This pattern goes beyond violating the sanctity of the dead; it strikes at the foundations of collective memory, historical continuity, and connection to the land by removing the physical markers of Palestinian generational continuity, in line with systematic policies of erasure and removal.

The geographical distribution of the attacks indicates a widespread strategy of spatial erasure. In Rafah governorate, all official cemeteries have been completely destroyed. In Khan Yunis, all 24 official cemeteries were targeted, with 83.3 per cent completely destroyed and 16.7 per cent partially destroyed. In North Gaza, all ten cemeteries have been destroyed, with half completely and half partially affected.

Similarly, all 11 cemeteries in the Gaza governorate were damaged, with 45.5 per cent completely destroyed and 54.5 per cent partially destroyed. In Central Gaza, four of the eight cemeteries were partially damaged, while the other four remained undamaged.

In many cases, the Israeli army deliberately exhumed graves and converted cemeteries into military barracks under the pretext of searching for the bodies of Israeli detainees. These actions were carried out without documented, verifiable procedures, independent oversight, or a clear chain of custody and handover process. Israeli forces removed hundreds of bodies from their burial sites, mixed remains, failed to return them to their original locations, and provided no identifying or biological data to enable verification or documentation, making the recovery and identification of remains extremely difficult.

In addition to violating the sanctity of the dead, this conduct reflects a pattern of dehumanization, treating Palestinian bodies as objects to be confiscated, mixed, and concealed rather than as remains of human beings with names, dignity, and rights. It constitutes a compounded violation that strips the dead of dignity, reduces them to unidentified corpses, deprives families of their humanitarian and religious right to know the fate of their loved ones and perform mourning and burial rites, and undermines the preservation of historical and civil records linked to identity and burial.

Keep reading

Hegseth’s call for ‘no mercy’ to Iranians deemed war crime

US War Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing accusations of violating domestic and international laws prohibiting war crimes by declaring that “no quarter” or mercy would be given to Iranian forces.

The legal definition of the term means surrendering Iranian soldiers would be executed by American troops rather than taken prisoner. US officials and legal experts have responded by accusing Hegseth of encouraging war crimes.

”We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies,” Hegseth said at a press briefing on Iran on Friday.

Some US officials and legal scholars have argued that the remarks went beyond tough rhetoric and strayed into criminality.

Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona blasted Hegseth, saying his comment “isn’t some wannabe tough guy line” but rather an illegal order that jeopardizes US military service members. It also shows “there was never a clear strategy for this war,” the lawmaker added.

Dan Maurer, a retired US Army lieutenant colonel and judge advocate, published a hypothetical memo Hegseth should receive from the Pentagon legal counsel, informing him of criminal liability for himself and any subordinate who followed his directive to deny quarter.

Keep reading

The War Without an Exit: Why Quick Victories in Iran Are Illusions

The notion of a short and decisive war has always been a temptation for politicians. This notion holds a promise of quick victories, low costs, and clear triumphs. However, the course of history over the last few decades has indicated that wars do not always follow this pattern. The current conflict between the United States and Iran seems to be a clear manifestation of this reality, as the early indications of a quick victory are not supported by the fundamental realities of the conflict.

The fundamental reason why a quick victory might not be possible in this conflict is not related to military capabilities. The military capabilities of the United States are overwhelming, as they are far ahead of Iran in terms of technology, logistics, and global reach. In the early phases of this conflict, the U.S. forces, along with the Israeli military, struck thousands of targets in Iran, targeting its missile capabilities, naval forces, and military installations. According to experts, the initial objective of this campaign was to destroy the Iranian naval capabilities, missile systems, and nuclear facilities, as well as weakening Iranian influence in the region.

However, military success does not automatically translate into a corresponding level of political achievement. As many a strategic analyst has noted, “destroying capabilities does not necessarily translate into regime collapse, political transformation, or stability.” While military instruments are effective at destroying capabilities, they are not as effective at creating alternatives.

This tension represents the heart of the strategic problem facing the United States.

As a matter of fact, even before the war began, American intelligence assessments reportedly indicated that military intervention was not likely to result in a change of regime in Iran because the Iranian system was so resilient, and there was no opposition to replace it.

Such intelligence assessments are part of a larger trend in modern warfare, wherein systems under military pressure tend to become more, not less, cohesive. Leadership changes occur rapidly without necessarily altering the fundamental structures of power. In this current conflict, the speed with which a new leader was installed into the Iranian leadership structure was a manifestation of this trend.

For the strategist who hopes to achieve a rapid level of regime collapse, this level of resilience represents a formidable obstacle.

Another factor affecting the prospects of a swift victory is the symmetry of the strategic goals and objectives. While the US might hope for a decisive victory in the form of destroying the military capability of the adversary or changing its politics, the same is not necessarily true for Iran. In fact, it is possible that the Iranian strategy is simply to survive.

In an asymmetric war, survival is victory.

The Iranian strategy seems to be one of survival and waiting it out, and analysts are observing how the escalation of the war is less dependent on the ability of the two adversaries to match each other in conventional warfare and more dependent on the ability of one of the adversaries to make the conflict unsustainable for the other. This means the war is now one of endurance rather than one of firepower.

A prime example of this is the energy sector and how it can be considered a part of the strategic environment. The current situation with the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s total oil supply is shipped, has already caused economic concerns for the world as a whole. Analysts predict that if the current situation is not rectified, the price of oil could rise significantly, causing economic consequences for the world as a whole.

Similar concerns are now coming from financial institutions as well, with some predictions indicating that the conflict could have significant effects on the world’s markets and economic growth, thus showing the economic consequences of the escalation of the conflict.

The economic consequences of the conflict create a whole new aspect of the strategic environment of the war. The conflict is no longer limited to military facilities and vessels; it is now affecting global trade routes and economic growth, as well as the politics of nations.

History has shown that conflicts of such nature are rarely brief.

The United States has faced similar strategic conundrums in the past. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan both began with rapid military successes that destroyed pre-existing governments within a matter of weeks. However, the political and security aftermaths took years to resolve. The conclusion should not be drawn that military force is ineffectual in these situations but rather that military victories do not necessarily equate to political success.

The case in Iran is more complex.

Keep reading

Five Losers in the War on Iran

There may be no winner in the war on Iran. But, although it is Iran that is under attack, they will not be the only losers. This war, fought without legal reason or political or security justification, will have myriad losers. Here are five.

The first loser of the war on Iran is the Iranians. Iran has an “inalienable right to a civilian program that uses nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They signed the JCPOA nuclear agreement that closed all roads to a military nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) repeatedly verified that they were in full compliance. They were currently negotiating further voluntary limitations on their civilian nuclear program, which would have assured the world of the impossibility of diverting their civilian nuclear program to a military one. Nothing was illegal or unusual about Iran’s nuclear or missile programs.

But bombs fell on Iranians. The people of Iran live in daily terror. Their cities are being bombed, and their infrastructure and water desalination plants have been devastated. Nearly 20,000 civilian buildings have been damaged, including dozens of hospitals and schools. Their leader has been assassinated. Over 1,300 civilians, hundreds of them children, have been killed.

The second country that will pay a price for the war on Iran is Ukraine. Just as Russia is thought to be massing for a large late spring offensive, its war economy is being pumped full by the rising cost of oil; which was caused by the effective closing of the Strait of Hormuz and the resultant easing of sanctions on Russian oil, while Ukraine’s supply of weapons is being threatened. Russia will have the money to continue launching missiles and drones, and Ukraine will lack the missiles to defend against them.

The U.S. is firing an incredible number of interceptors to defend against Iranian missiles and drones. The war on Iran is using up the defensive weapons that would have been sent to Ukraine. “The biggest and most immediate impact will be on air defense,” Jennifer Kavanagh, Senior Fellow & Director of Military Analysis at Defense Priorities, told me, since “Ukraine depends almost entirely on the United States for air defense, especially Patriot air interceptors and AMRAAMs.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said, “We understand that a long war… and the intensity of the fighting will affect the amount of air defence equipment we receive.”

In this war of choice, the U.S. has made a bad choice, and it too will be a loser in this war. The U.S. will lose the war in Iran in four ways.

Keep reading

China Floods the Skies Near Taiwan and Raises a Dangerous Question

Taiwan’s defense ministry reported a major surge of Chinese military aircraft operating near the island over the weekend. Radar operators tracked dozens of aircraft moving through the surrounding airspace in a pattern that drew immediate attention across the region. The activity marked one of the larger recent waves of Chinese air operations around Taiwan.


Taiwan didn’t report any Chinese military planes that went beyond the median line and entered the zone for a week from Feb. 27 to March 5. After two were detected on March 6, the next four days had none. Such flights resumed in small numbers between Wednesday and Friday.

The drop coincided with the annual meeting of China’s legislature. While such flights have fallen in the past during major events and public holidays, this year’s fall was more prominent than in the past.

Analysts said the meeting could not be the sole reason behind the recent drop. Another potential factor could be a desire to calm the waters with Washington weeks before a visit by U.S. President Donald Trump. The White House has said that Trump would travel to China from March 31 to April 2, though Beijing has not officially confirmed that.

Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense released details showing fighters, surveillance aircraft, and support planes flying close to the island. The aircraft operated in areas near Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, which Taiwan closely monitors with radar and interceptor aircraft. Taiwan’s military scrambled its fighters and activated missile systems while tracking the formations and is treating the flights as another set of serious pressure points from Beijing.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has increased military pressure on Taiwan during the past ten years, as highlighted by Chinese aircraft and naval vessels now appearing around the island far more frequently than they did ten years ago, a pattern that’s raised concerns across the Indo-Pacific region.

Several explanations could account for the latest surge of aircraft.

The first possibility involves routine military drills. The People’s Liberation Army regularly conducts exercises designed to test readiness and coordination among air units. Large formations help pilots practice joint operations and refine command procedures. Military planners often run those drills in areas close to Taiwan because the region sits near important strategic sea lanes and air corridors.

Psychological pressure may be behind a second possibility. China views Taiwan as part of its territory and has never ruled out using force to bring the island under Beijing’s control.

Large aircraft formations near Taiwan send a visible message to Taipei and to governments that support Taiwan’s security, reminding observers that China continues building military strength capable of operating around the island.

Keep reading

Trump announces $10B U.S. investment in Board of Peace to rebuild Gaza

President Donald Trump said the United States will contribute $10 billion to the Board of Peace — an international organization he launched in January to help rebuild the Gaza Strip and secure peace in other conflict zones.

At the board’s first meeting in Washington on Thursday, he said other member countries will contribute billions more and send soldiers for Palestinian security.

“The Board of Peace is showing how a better future can be built starting right here,” Trump said at the meeting attended by 17 world leaders who are part of the board, as well as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff.  

“We will help Gaza,” Trump said. “We will straighten it out. We will make it successful. We will make it peaceful. And we will do that in other spots. The Board of Peace is going to lead the way in Gaza.”

In addition to the U.S., seven other countries, including Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Saudi Arabia, have contributed more than $7 billion to help the Gaza relief effort, Trump announced. The United Nations Office of Humanitarian Assistance is raising $2 billion to support Gaza, and FIFA plans to raise $75 million and to bring World Cup soccer stars to the war-torn territory, he said.

An estimated $70 billion is reportedly needed to rebuild the Palestinian territory decimated after two years of war with Israel.

Approved by the United Nations Security Council last year, the Board of Peace was initiated as part of Trump’s 20-point peace plan to end the conflict in Gaza, starting with a ceasefire that began in October. The second stage of the plan, focused on demilitarization and reconstruction, was announced in January.

During Thursday’s meeting, Albania, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Morocco committed to creating an armed International Stabilization Force to keep security and ensure the disarming of the militant Hamas group, a key demand of Israel and a cornerstone of the ceasefire deal. Egypt and Jordan committed to training a police force, U.S. Maj. Gen. Jasper Jeffers, commander of the Gaza International Stabilization Force, said Thursday.

Jeffers said a team of U.S. military experts is already on the ground in Gaza preparing the infrastructure for ISF headquarters to oversee five sectors in Gaza, each of which will receive a brigade of troops. The long-term goal is to have 12,000 police and 20,000 ISF soldiers, he said, starting with Rafah — the border crossing at the southern end of the 140-square-mile coastal territory.

“This is a vision of Gaza as part of the Middle East at peace,” former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at the meeting.

Keep reading

AXIOS: Trump Considering Seizing Kharg Island With American Troops

U.S. President Donald Trump has intensified calls for international allies to deploy naval forces to the Strait of Hormuz, the critical chokepoint for global oil shipments, amid escalating disruptions caused by the ongoing U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran.

President Trump is also considering seizing Kharg Island, which handles about 90% of Iran’s crude exports, if the Strait of Hormuz blockade continues, reports Axios.

U.S. officials say capturing the island could deliver “an economic knockout of the regime.” The plan would require U.S. boots on the ground and a military occupation of the island. Officials warn it carries major risks, including Iranian retaliation against Gulf oil facilities and pipelines, especially in Saudi Arabia.

One official said “there are big risks, there are big rewards.”

At a meeting in the Oval Office, Trump pressed General Caine on why the United States could not immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Caine explained that controlling the strait is extremely difficult because Iran can disrupt shipping with small, mobile forces rather than large naval assets.

Keep reading

The War Nobody’s Watching: Pakistan’s Three-Front Conflict

On Feb. 22, 2026, a Pakistani airstrike hit the village of Girdi Kas in eastern Afghanistan. As one family lost 18 of its 23 members, Pakistan termed it a targeted counterterrorism operation against militant hideouts. Afghanistan, in contrast, said the strikes hit civilian homes and a religious school. The United Nations confirmed credible reports of civilian casualties, including women and children.

Five days later, Pakistan’s defense minister declared “open war” as Pakistani warplanes struck Kabul, Kandahar, and targets at the former American air base at Bagram, though the Taliban denied significant damage. Afghanistan retaliated with drone strikes and cross-border offensives. Both sides claimed to have killed hundreds.

“They have a great prime minister, a great general,” Trump declared, that same day. “Pakistan is doing terrifically well.”

The State Department backed Pakistan’s “right to defend itself against attacks from the Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist group.” Three days later, the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Iran, and the Pakistan-Afghanistan war vanished from the news.

Yet Pakistan is now fighting on three fronts.

To the northwest, an open war with Afghanistan. To the southwest, an escalating insurgency across the province of Balochistan, where separatist militants launched coordinated attacks across a dozen cities in January, killing nearly 200 people. To the east, an unresolved military standoff with India following their brief war last May – the heaviest engagement between the two nuclear powers since 1971.

Meanwhile, the United States is entangled on every side: backing Pakistan’s military against the Taliban while partnered strategically with the India that hosts the Taliban, that Pakistan accuses of fueling the Baloch insurgency, and that just went to war with Pakistan last year. Yet the U.S. is too busy bombing Iran to notice.

Pakistan shares a 1,600-mile border with Afghanistan to the northwest – a contested colonial-era line that splits the Pashtun population and that no Afghan government has ever recognized. Its southwestern province of Balochistan, the country’s largest and poorest, borders both Afghanistan and Iran and sits atop vast reserves of coal, gold, copper, and gas. To the east lies India, with the disputed territory of Kashmir the eternal sore point between them.

Three borders. Three conflicts.

Keep reading