Tag: perpetual war

The Bloody Awful Waste of War

Iran’s forensics chief said nearly 3,400 people had been killed in the country since U.S.-Israeli strikes began Feb. 28. Almost 2,500 people have been killed in Lebanon, 32 have been killed in Gulf states, and 23 have died in Israel. Thirteen U.S. service members have been killed, and two more died of noncombat causes.

I happen to believe Iranian lives are as valuable and precious as American lives. What gives the U.S. and Israeli governments the right to inflict such disproportionate casualties on Iran, on Lebanon, on Gaza? (I know: might makes right.) If you include the Palestinians, more than 100,000 people, and probably closer to 200,000, have been killed in the latest Israeli/U.S. wars, with the United States providing most of the deadly weaponry.

Speaking of weaponry, the liberal New York Times had an article last week lamenting the heavy expenditure of costly precision weaponry (like Tomahawk cruise missiles) by the U.S. since the beginning of the Iran War. Nowhere in the article was there a complaint about the death toll, nor was there much of a complaint about the cost. No – what the liberal New York Times was concerned about was how quickly the U.S. could replenish its stockpile of weaponry so it could be prepared for a future war against peer threats like China and Russia.

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Since the Iran war began in late February, the United States has burned through around 1,100 of its long-range stealth cruise missiles built for a war with China, close to the total number remaining in the US stockpile. The military has fired off more than 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles, roughly 10 times the number it currently buys each year.

The Pentagon used more than 1,200 Patriot interceptor missiles in the war, at more than $4 million a pop, and more than 1,000 Precision Strike and ATACMS ground-based missiles, leaving inventories worrisomely low, according to internal Defense Department estimates and congressional officials.

The Iran war has significantly drained much of the US military’s global supply of munitions, and forced the Pentagon to rush bombs, missiles and other hardware to the Middle East from commands in Asia and Europe. The drawdowns have left these regional commands less ready to confront potential adversaries such as Russia and China, and it has forced the United States to find ways to scale up production to address the depletions, Trump administration and congressional officials say.

Again, if you read the article, nothing is said about morality. Nothing is said about death and dying and the bloody awfulness of war. The article simply says the U.S. has used a lot of very expensive missiles that we MUST replace if we’re to be prepared to wage more wars in the near future.

There’s not even a hint here that maybe America could be at peace – even in the most distant future. Apparently, America must always remain locked and loaded for a war with China, or Russia, or some other country and combination of countries, even as all this is couched as defending the homeland.

Keep reading

Stagflation Incoming: The Donald Ain’t Gonna Like What Happens Next!

Here is a salient place to start regarding the economic impact of the Donald’s misbegotten war on Iran: To wit, approximately 7 billion ton-miles of freight moves by truck each and every day in the USA, which heavy truck fleet consumes upwards of 2.9 million barrels per day (mb/d) of diesel fuel.

Alas, the price of diesel fuel was about $3.55/gallon both a year ago and as of early January 2026, but has since soared by more than+$2.00 per gallon to $5.60. That’s a 56% rise in the cost of pumping goods and commodities through the arteries of the US economy. On an annualized basis, the diesel fuel bill for the US truck fleet went from $155 billion per year to $250 billion per year at current oil prices.

The big question, of course, is through which channel these drastically higher fuel acquisition costs will be absorbed – in higher prices or reduced output? And that pertains not just to the microcosm of the trucking sector, but the entire GDP now being battered by the Donald’s elective war-based dislocation of the world’s 175 million BOE/day oil and natural gas markets.

We’d bet it will be a combination of both inflation and deflation, otherwise known as stagflation. The mix of these outcomes depends upon supply and demand conditions in individual sectors of the economy in part, but also, and ultimately and more importantly, on the Fed. That is, whether the nation’s central bank pumps incremental demand into the economy via credit expansion with a view to “accommodating” the soaring price of energy today, and, soon, food and other commodity inputs to GDP, too; or holds firm on the printing press dials and allows the now cresting energy and commodity shocks to work their way through the interstices of the $30 trillion US economy.

Of course, during the previous comparable petroleum supply disruption during the 1970s, the Fed made the huge mistake of printing the money to counteract what was a “supply shock” in the form of soaring petroleum prices. But that led – just as sound money advocates had always held – to double digit increases in the general price level by the end of the decade, and thereafter the trauma of the Volcker administered application of the monetary brakes.

With the Fed fixing to welcome a new Chairman, as today’s congressional hearings remind, it is therefore a question of whether or not the Kevin Warsh Fed will want to take its place in the monetary policy villains gallery along with Arthur Burns and the hapless William G. Miller.

We think not. We actually believe that for the first time since Volcker, we are about to get a Fed chairman who understands the requisites of sound money and noninflationary finance, as well as the profound error of Keynesian demand management at the central bank.

And not only that. As far as we can tell, he also has the experience from his prior service on the Fed during the so-called Great Financial Crisis and the cajones to lean heavily against the supply shock now emanating from the Persian Gulf.

Of course, in a perfect world of honest money and free markets – including in the production of money and credit – there wouldn’t be any central bank “leaning” to do. Under an honest money gold standard, for instance, the impending petroleum supply shock would cause relative price changes, thereby generating a sharp curtailment of activity in petroleum intensive sectors and the reallocation of activity, output, jobs and capital to less petroleum intensive sectors. That’s what the miracle of free markets do when they are allowed by the state to operate.

Keep reading

The Cowardice of Qualification: When Anti-War Voices Speak the Language of Empire

A respected human rights activist has spoken repeatedly against the US-Israeli aggression on Iran. She recognizes the illegality of the war and does not shy away from condemning it in clear terms. Yet, almost invariably, she feels compelled to qualify her position, reminding her audience that Iran has killed “tens of thousands of protesters” during recent anti-government demonstrations.

The number itself is highly questionable. Even widely cited figures from international reporting – such as Reuters coverage in January 2026 – place the death toll of the protests in the thousands, not tens of thousands. But the issue here is not the exact number, nor even the complex context of those protests, which began as genuine expressions of discontent but were later exploited by various external and internal actors seeking to destabilize the country.

The issue is the qualification itself.

Many who consider themselves progressive, anti-war, liberal, or even leftist seem unable to take a clear moral position on US and Israeli actions in the Global South without inserting these qualifications. The habit may appear harmless, even responsible, but in reality, it is deeply damaging. It is not a sign of nuance – it is a symptom of a deeper moral hesitation.

By qualifying their condemnation, these voices neutralize their own position. They suggest, whether intentionally or not, a form of moral equivalence: the US-Israeli war on Iran is wrong, but Iran is also guilty; the genocide in Gaza is horrific, but Palestinians are also to blame. The result is not balance – it is paralysis.

Compare this to the moral clarity of those who support war. Their position is never qualified. It is assertive, absolute, and often built on exaggeration or outright falsehoods, yet it carries conviction because it does not undermine itself.

This pattern is not new. It is deeply rooted in the history of Western political discourse. From the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, which was justified as a necessary act to save lives, to the Cold War military interventions in places like Guatemala in 1954, where regime change was framed as a defense against communism, the language of morality has consistently been used to legitimize violence.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 offers one of the clearest examples. Saddam Hussein was presented as the ultimate embodiment of evil – the “new Hitler” – while the United States and its allies were cast as liberators.

Indeed, American officials spoke openly of being “greeted as liberators,” even as the country was plunged into chaos and extreme violence. A few years later, then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the devastation created by the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006 as “the birth pangs of a new Middle East,” reducing immense human suffering to a necessary step in a grand geopolitical transformation.

This tradition extends even further back, to the era of colonialism, when European powers justified conquest through supposedly humanitarian missions. The abolition of slavery, for example, was frequently invoked as a moral justification for colonial expansion in Africa, recasting domination as benevolence and violence as a civilizing duty. Killing, in this paradigm, happens in the name of saving; destruction is presented as progress.

Israel has long operated within this same framework. Its wars have consistently been presented as existential and necessary for the survival of democracy and civilization itself.

Long before the emergence of Hamas, Palestinian resistance was framed through shifting labels that served the same purpose. During the 1936–39 revolt, Palestinian fighters were described in British and Zionist discourse as “terrorists,” “brigands,” and “gangs.” In later decades, the label shifted – from nationalist fighters to communists to Islamists – but the underlying logic remained unchanged: the enemy is always illegitimate, and therefore any violence against them is justified.

Many of us recognize this pattern, yet instead of exposing its fallacies, some continue to operate within it, searching for a “balanced” position while still presenting themselves as anti-war or even pro-Palestinian. They acknowledge Israeli crimes but feel compelled to condemn Palestinian “terrorism.” They oppose Israeli policies yet insist on distancing themselves from Hamas and the others, as if Palestinian resistance exists outside the historical and political reality that produced it. They speak of “extremists on both sides,” as though figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and a Palestinian fighter in Gaza can be meaningfully compared.

Keep reading

The Emerging Push To Extend Some US Veteran Benefits To IDF Soldiers

A real policy push has emerged in the United States to extend certain legal protections to Americans who serve in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). In 2024, members of Congress introduced H.R. 8445, a bill that would amend federal law “to provide for the eligibility of United States citizens who serve in the Israeli Defense Forces for certain protections relating to such service.” 

Under current law, US veterans’ benefits are tied to service in the US armed forces. The statutory definition of “veteran” appears at 38 USC § 101(2) and limits eligibility to those who served in U.S. military forces or narrow statutory exceptions. The proposal in H.R. 8445 would move away from that framework.

Who Is Pushing for It and What They Are Saying

The legislation was introduced by Representatives Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA) and Max Miller (R-OH). In their official statement, they said the bill is intended to support Americans serving in Israel and noted that “over 20,000 American citizens are currently defending Israel.” They added that the legislation would “ensure we do everything possible to support these heroes.” 

The proposal explicitly frames IDF service as deserving of treatment similar to US military service for certain protections. Reporting summarizing the bill states that it would treat Americans serving in the IDF “in the same manner as service in the uniformed services” for specific legal protections. 

What Exactly They Are Trying to Extend

The bill focuses on extending two core legal protections that apply to US servicemembers.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) provides protections such as limits on interest rates, protections against eviction and foreclosure, and relief in certain legal proceedings. 

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) guarantees that individuals who leave civilian employment for military service can return to their jobs and are protected from discrimination. 

H.R. 8445 would extend these protections to Americans serving in the IDF, effectively treating that service as qualifying military service under US law for those purposes.

Keep reading

Israel Awaits U.S. OK to Attack Iran; State Dept. Admits U.S. Went to War at Israel’s Request

Israel is preparing to renew its attack on Iran, and awaits only the “green light” from the United States, the country’s defense minister said.

Israel Katz said the upcoming attack will erase the Khamenei dynasty and blow Iran back to the “age of darkness and stone,” reiterating U.S. President Donald Trump’s vow in early April to bomb Iran back to the “Stone Ages.” Katz threatened the attack as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced a visit to Islamabad, where peace talks between the U.S. and Iran have been going on but failing miserably.

Katz’s remarks, former U.S. counterterror chief Joe Kent said, show that Israel is attempting to force the U.S. to continue attacking Iran. Days ago, the State Department admitted what Secretary of State Marco Rubio said early on: Israel dragged the U.S. into the war. 

Keep reading

Decades-Old Iranian Jet Breached US Defenses, Struck Gulf Base in Early Phase of War — Reports

Iran’s early retaliatory strikes in the US-Israeli aggression caused significantly more damage to US military infrastructure than publicly acknowledged, with over 100 targets hit across bases in multiple Gulf countries, NBC News reported.

In the opening phase, an Iranian F-5 — a Cold War-era aircraft — penetrated air defenses and struck Camp Buehring in Kuwait, despite the presence of advanced US systems.

Facilities including hangars, runways, radar installations and command sites across Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE were damaged, with repair costs estimated in the billions.

When a decades-old jet can get through and land a hit, the image of untouchable “air dominance” starts to look a lot less convincing.

Keep reading

DEBUNKED: The Left Falsely Blames Trump for the Afghan Refugee Mess Created by Biden’s Disastrous Withdrawal

Left-wing media is once again scrambling to rewrite recent history—this time over Afghan refugees still stranded overseas after Joe Biden’s catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

During a recent segment, MSNOW attempted to frame President Donald Trump as “targeting” Afghan allies who assisted the United States during the war. 

The claim centers around reports that some Afghan nationals currently living in Qatar may be given relocation options outside the United States, including possible resettlement in other countries.

But the outrage narrative leaves out the most important facts.

First, these individuals were not universally promised permanent resettlement in the United States—certainly not under the Trump administration. 

The idea that every Afghan who assisted U.S. efforts was guaranteed entry into the U.S. is simply false. Immigration and refugee policy has always involved a structured vetting process, prioritization, and logistical constraints.

The current situation exists because of Biden’s 2021 withdrawal—an operation widely criticized across the political spectrum for its execution.

When the Taliban rapidly took over Afghanistan following Biden’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces, thousands of Afghan allies were left in limbo. Many were relocated to temporary holding locations, including a former U.S. military base in Qatar. 

Years later, many remain there, waiting for final decisions on resettlement.

That is the context MSNOW conveniently ignored.

Instead, the segment leaned heavily on emotional framing, highlighting interpreters, special forces affiliates, and families—including hundreds of children—while suggesting the Trump administration is abandoning them. 

The reporting relied in part on claims from outlets like The New York Times, which often shape the initial narrative before it spreads across legacy media.

What is actually being discussed is policy—not abandonment.

Any proposal to relocate individuals to third countries is part of a broader effort to manage a complex backlog created by the rushed withdrawal. 

Keep reading

U.S. soldier involved in Maduro raid charged with betting on the operation

Federal authorities arrested and charged a U.S. special forces soldier who is accused of using classified information about the raid that removed Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro from office to make prediction market bets.

The soldier was identified as Gannon Ken Van Dyke in a news release announcing the indictment.

Van Dyke “bet a total of approximately $33,034” on the Maduro operation on the prediction market platform Polymarket, federal authorities said. He ultimately made more than $409,000 as a result of the bets placed on the U.S. operation, an unsealed indictment alleges.

Authorities said he “participated in the planning and execution of the U.S. military operation to capture Nicolás Maduro.”

“In total, Van Dyke made approximately 13 bets from Dec. 27, 2025, through the evening of Jan. 26,” the Justice Department said.

Van Dyke was charged with “unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain, theft of nonpublic government information, commodities fraud, wire fraud, and making an unlawful monetary transaction.”

Just hours after the U.S. government apprehended Maduro and transported him aboard the USS Iwo Jima, a photograph of Van Dyke was taken and uploaded to his Google account, prosecutors alleged in the indictment.

The image showed Van Dyke on what appeared to be the deck of a ship at sea during sunrise, the indictment stated. In the photograph, he was wearing U.S. military fatigues and carrying a rifle with three others who were also wearing fatigues, the document said.

The image wasn’t included in the indictment and NBC News has not reviewed it.

An attorney for Van Dyke was not listed on the court docket, and no one answered cell phone numbers listed for him Thursday evening.

Keep reading

Trump Rules Out Use of Nuclear Weapons in Iran War

President Donald Trump on Thursday ruled out using a nuclear weapon in the war with Iran.

He told reporters in the Oval Office that the United States has already greatly weakened the Islamic Republic with conventional weapons, declaring that “a nuclear weapon should never be allowed to be used by anybody.”

PBS NewsHour correspondent Liz Landers asked the president whether nuclear weapons might be used in the war, which the president said was a “stupid” question. 

“Why would I use a nuclear weapon when we’ve totally and in a very conventional way decimated them without it?” Trump said. “I wouldn’t use it.”

Two days ago, Trump extended a two-week ceasefire with Tehran, calling the Iranian leadership “seriously fractured.” He also cited a request from Pakistan’s prime minister as another reason for extending the ceasefire. 

In an April 17 Truth Social post, Trump said that Iran had agreed to surrender enriched uranium buried by last summer’s strikes on an underground base. 

Keep reading

Trump Orders Navy to Destroy Iranian Boats Mining Strait of Hormuz, Reposted Column That Advocates More Killing

President Donald Trump warned Iran today that the U.S. Navy would destroy boats that are laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz.

The threat comes after he announced an extension of the two-week ceasefire that was to end last night, as Pakistan attempted to persuade Iran to negotiate an end to the war. How well that effort can go is now open to question.

Multiple posts on X today reported that Iran’s chief negotiator, Parliament Speaker Bagher Ghalibaf, has resigned from Iran’s negotiating team, but an Iranian journalist called those reports “ridiculous.”

And Trump reposted on X a line from Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen, who argues that the Iranians need a deal and Trump doesn’t. Trump must therefore kill anti-peace deal officials.

Who’s the Leader?

Trump took to Truth Social this morning to unbosom himself of another threat, as is his custom.

“I have ordered the United States Navy to shoot and kill any boat, small boats though they may be (Their naval ships are ALL, 159 of them, at the bottom of the sea!), that is putting mines in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump wrote:

There is to be no hesitation. Additionally, our mine “sweepers” are clearing the Strait right now. I am hereby ordering that activity to continue, but at a tripled up level! 

Trump followed that with another post about supposed infighting among Iranian officials over who is running the country, and a claim that the U.S. Navy has sealed the strait.

“Iran is having a very hard time figuring out who their leader is!” Trump continued:

They just don’t know! The infighting is between the “Hardliners,” who have been losing BADLY on the battlefield, and the “Moderates,” who are not very moderate at all (but gaining respect!), is CRAZY! We have total control over the Strait of Hormuz. No ship can enter or leave without the approval of the United States Navy. It is “Sealed up Tight,” until such time as Iran is able to make a DEAL!!!

A report from U.S. Central Command appears to confirm Trump’s claim.

“U.S. forces have directed 29 vessels to turn around or return to port as part of the U.S. blockade against Iran,” CENTCOM reported:

Over past 24 hours, media reports have alleged that several commercial ships evaded the blockade, citing M/V Hero II, M/V Hedy, and M/V Dorena as examples. These reports are inaccurate.

Hero II and Hedy did not sail past the blockade as part of a flotilla that “ferried” millions of barrels of oil to the market. In fact, the Iranian-flagged tankers are anchored in Chah Bahar, Iran, after being intercepted by U.S. forces earlier this week. Dorena has been under the escort of a U.S. Navy destroyer in the Indian Ocean after previously attempting to violate the blockade. 

On Tuesday, Trump claimed that the blockade had collapsed Iran’s economy, and that the nation was losing $500 million daily.

Keep reading