Tag: perpetual war

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Refers Radical Organizer Aisha Nizar to FBI After She Urges Palestinian Activists to Sabotage America’s F-35 Fighter Jets

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) is calling for a federal investigation into radical organizer Aisha Nizar, after Nizar openly encouraged Palestinian activists to intervene in the U.S. F-35 fighter jet supply chain.

The so-called “People’s Conference for Palestine,” held August 29 in Detroit, brought together thousands of anti-Israel agitators, leftist groups, and pro-Hamas sympathizers under one roof.

Far from a “peace” summit, the event quickly devolved into calls for sabotage, economic warfare, and even direct intervention against the United States military supply chain.

According to recently released reports, radical organizers are furious that shipments of U.S.-made F-35 components are being routed through Oakland International Airport en route to Israel.

Shipping documents reveal over 250 shipments this year alone, including bomb-release units (BRU-68s) capable of dropping 2,000-pound munitions.

Aisha Nizar, a leader of the Palestinian Youth Movement, told the crowd that activists must strategically intervene in the F-35 supply chain.

She described in detail how the program relies on a “just-in-time” logistics process, warning that disrupting even one node of the system could cripple U.S. operations.

Nizar:
“Is it true that 70% of the cost of the F-35 program actually comes from the supply chain? Seventy percent of this $2 trillion goes into the supply chain literally because they need to transport the different components of the F-35 to various locations for assembly.

What’s really important to know is that the F-35 supply chain functions on a “just-in-time” logistics process. It’s an inventory management system called just-in-time, which means that goods are delivered right before they’re needed.

It’s also noted that for an F-35, every one hour of flight requires three hours of maintenance. What I’m saying is that if even one specific node of the F-35 supply chain is disrupted, it has a huge impact on our people back home.

We’ve developed a methodology, and I hope we can get into it further during this panel. But what’s most important to understand is that the more we know, the more we can do. Knowledge truly is power here.

We need to be surgical, strategic, and bold in our actions, because there are many different points in these supply chains of death where we can—and must—intervene.”

Keep reading

Department of War?

Last week President Trump took steps to re-name the Department of Defense the “Department of War.” The President explained his rationale for the name change: “It used to be called the Department of War and it had a stronger sound. We want defense, but we want offense too… As Department of War we won everything… and I think we… have to go back to that.”

At first it sounds like a terrible idea. A “Department of War” may well make war more likely – the “stronger sound” may embolden the US government to take us into even more wars. There would no longer be any need for the pretext that we take the nation to war to defend this country and its interests – and only as a last resort.

As Clinton Administration official Madeleine Albright famously asked of Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell when she was pushing for US war in the Balkans, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

So yes, that is a real danger. But at the same time, the US has been at war nearly constantly since the end of World War II, so it’s not like the “Defense Department” has been in any way a defensive department.

With that in mind, returning the Department of Defense to the Department of War, which is how it started, may not be such a bad idea after all – as long as we can be honest about the rest of the terms around our warmaking.

If we return to a “War Department,” then we should also return to the Constitutional requirement that any military activity engaged in by that department short of defending against an imminent attack on the US requires a Congressional declaration of war. That was the practice followed when it was called the War Department and we should return to it.

Dropping the notion that we have a “Defense Department” would free us from the charade that our massive military spending budget was anything but a war budget. No more “defense appropriations” bills in Congress. Let’s call them “war appropriations” bills. Let the American people understand what so much of their hard-earned money is being taken to support. It’s not “defense.” It’s “war.” And none of it has benefited the American people.

Keep reading

The Case for an Interim Agreement With North Korea

Striking a nuclear deal with North Korea is the most courageous foreign policy project left unfinished from President Donald Trump’s first term. The arc from war scare and “fire and fury” to détente and “love letters” stretched over three years until its engagement phase was derailed by the failed Hanoi summit and the onset of Covid-19. Six years on, statements by the White House and the Kim regime indicate a willingness to return to talks. That is welcome, because progress toward establishing a stable U.S.–DPRK relationship remains in the interests of both sides, even accounting for the dramatic improvement in the North’s international position since 2021. 

The South Korean president Lee Jae Myung’s visit to Washington last week would have been a good opportunity for the White House to begin to adopt a new approach. Frontloading heavy demands on denuclearization foreclosed progress on other worthy issues in 2018–2019. To make headway in 2025, the U.S. must shift from “denuclearization first” to “regular engagement first,” and accept that complete denuclearization is a long-run aspiration. Trump should pitch the North on an interim deal that couples three public unilateral U.S. concessions with a private offer of sanctions relief calibrated to verifiable limits on the North’s fissile material production.

Kim Jong Un’s reciprocation is never guaranteed, but it is in America’s interests to broaden his horizons beyond fighting Russia’s war against Ukraine, international cybercrime, and untrammeled development of nuclear missiles that can strike the United States.

The 2019 Hanoi summit, the last substantive high-level U.S.–DPRK meeting, was meant to implement the four aspirations of the 2018 Singapore Joint Statement: establishing a new U.S.–DPRK relationship, building a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, working toward the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and repatriating the remains of American soldiers who died in the Korean War. Pending a leader-level accord on denuclearization, both sides were reportedly ready to make unprecedented progress on the other three goals by signing agreements declaring a symbolic end to the Korean War, establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals, facilitating economic investment, and repatriating remains of more U.S. soldiers.

But talks on denuclearization quickly collapsed. Trump walked away from a DPRK offer to dismantle at least part of its Yongbyon plutonium and enriched uranium facility and formally halt nuclear and missile testing in exchange for the lifting of all post-2016 UN sanctions on its civilian economy. The U.S. position began with a demand for the North to freeze and dismantle all its nuclear production facilities—not only Yongbyon—in a definite period in exchange for relief from the UN sanctions. At some point the U.S. side reportedly increased its demand to include total relinquishment of North Korea’s nuclear program, including all facilities and all weapons. This “Libya model” offer bore the imprint of John Bolton, Trump’s then-National Security Advisor, and was probably designed to sabotage the talks, since Kim certainly knew of Muammar Gaddafi’s grisly death less than a decade after he relinquished his nuclear program.

Trump and Kim both gambled that the magic of a leader-level summit would allow them to achieve sweeping goals. Each devalued pre-summit talks that could have produced a more incremental, more achievable deal. Kim refused to even authorize his working level diplomats to discuss denuclearization. And the White House went ahead with the summit knowing a viable deal was not on the table. 

What is unclear from the public record is the extent to which either side, facing maximalist requests, toned down their own position to try bridge the gap. That incremental approach, which tends to de-emphasize the goal of complete denuclearization, is the best path forward.

North Korea’s willingness and capacity to harm U.S. interests is now greater than ever. Its arsenal of warheads has reportedly grown from 15 to 50 since 2016 and it is estimated to have sufficient fissile material for 40 more. It continues to test and refine ICBM designs that can strike the continental U.S., including solid-fueled models that can be dispersed and launched at short notice. North Korea’s geopolitical ambit has also spread to Europe. It has sold Russia billions of dollars’ worth of ammunition to support its war effort in Ukraine. In June 2024 Russia and North Korea signed a mutual defense treaty, and 15,000 North Korean soldiers were sent to fight in Russia’s Kursk region. In return, Russia has granted the country access to advanced missile and reconnaissance technologies. At the same time, Russia and China have relaxed their enforcement of the post-2016 UN sanctions, reducing pressure on the North’s civilian economy.

Keep reading

The Gaza War Isn’t Over, But Israel Has Already Lost

The Israeli regime has lost its multi-front war in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Yes, really. It may not look like it, but the defeat is real and  baked into Israel’s future.

Let me first make the case for Israeli “victory”:

Since its 2023 invasion of Gaza, the Israeli Defence Forces report fewer than 800 troops killed, while in turn killing tens — maybe hundreds — of thousands of mostly civilian Palestinian Arabs (and 250 or more inconvenient journalists).

Since the beginning. They’ve established their ability to attack any point in Gaza at will, driving a displaced, hungry population back and forth over piles of bodies, while seizing more land in the West Bank and Syria, liquidating Hezbollah’s Lebanese strongholds, trading missile strikes with Yemen’s Houthis, and even emerging relatively unscathed, if not particularly successful, in an intermittent war with Iran.

Top Israeli regime officials confidently assert that the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and annexation of the West Bank are inevitable.

Yes, that sounds rather like multiple “victories,” accomplished and pending.

But those victories didn’t come from nowhere. They were enabled by decades of massive financial, military, and diplomatic support from the United States.

Yes, other regimes too, but most of those “allies” are moving in the other direction already — cutting off arms sales, recognizing a Palestinian state, and sanctioning Israeli war criminals.

It’s quickly coming down to the “no daylight between us” US/Israel relationship under which the former annually shovels billions of dollars, and when requested direct military assistance, at the latter, no questions asked (US law “guarantees” Israel a “Qualitative Military Edge”), while using its own sanctions power and veto on the UN Security Council to protect Benjamin Netanyahu and Friends from the consequences of their actions.

That relationship is nearing its end.

Keep reading

Trump Orders U.S. Military Strike on Drug Boat, Killing 11 Tren de Aragua Terrorists in Warning to Traffickers

On direct orders from President Donald Trump, U.S. military forces launched a precision strike on a drug-laden vessel in international waters, killing 11 Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists en route to the United States. Trump declared the operation a clear warning to traffickers that those who smuggle poison toward American shores will face swift and lethal consequences.

“Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” President Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States.

The president included a video showing an aerial view of the panga boat. At the 20-second mark in the video, the boat explodes and bursts into flames. The boat quickly sank.

The commander-in-chief added, “The strike resulted in 11 terrorists killed in action. No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE! Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!!!!!!!!!”

Breitbart News contacted the Pentagon for additional information regarding what type of munitions and delivery platforms were utilized in the attack. A senior U.S. Defense official responded, saying, “As the President announced today, we can confirm the U.S. military conducted a precision strike against a drug vessel operated by a designated narco-terrorist organization. More information will be made available at a later time.”

The White House reposted the president’s Truth Social comments, adding, “Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!”

Keep reading

Swastikas remain on some flags in Finland’s air force but are on the way out

Finland’s air force, now part of NATO, still flies swastikas on a handful of unit flags — but is preparing to phase them out, largely to avoid awkwardness with its Western allies.

The history of the Finnish air force’s use of the swastika, which since the 20th century has largely been associated with Nazi tyranny and hate groups, is more complex than at first appearance. It is an ancient symbol and Finland’s air force began using it many years before the birth of Nazi Germany.

Change has been underway for years. A swastika logo was quietly pulled off the Air Force Command’s unit emblem a few years ago. But swastikas have remained on some Finnish air force flags, raising eyebrows among NATO allies, tourists and other foreigners who spot them at military events.

“We could have continued with this flag, but sometimes awkward situations can arise with foreign visitors. It may be wise to live with the times, Col. Tomi Böhm, the new head of Karelia Air Wing air defense force, was quoted as saying in a report Thursday by the public broadcaster YLE.

A bad look for a new NATO member

The Defense Forces, in an email to The Associated Press on Friday, said a plan to renew the air force unit flags was launched in 2023, the year Finland joined NATO, but said it was not linked to joining the alliance. The aim, it said, was “to update the symbolism and emblems of the flags to better reflect the current identity of the Air Force.”

It referred to an article in daily Helsingin Sanomat on Friday, which said the reason for the removal was a perception that the swastika has been an “embarrassing symbol in international contexts.”

Finland, which shares a long border with Russia, joined NATO in April 2023 over concerns related to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Teivo Teivainen, a professor of world politics at the University of Helsinki, said the flags in question were introduced in the 1950s and today are flown by four Air Force units.

The Air Force and the Finnish public generally had for years insisted the swastikas used in Finland’s air force “have nothing to do with the Nazi swastika,” said Teivainen, who this month had a book published whose Finnish title translates as “History of the Swastika.”

But now, following Finland’s integration with NATO, policymakers have decided “there’s now a need to get more integrated with the forces of countries like Germany, the Netherlands, and France — countries where the swastika is clearly a negative symbol,” he said.

Teivainen said that in 2021, German air force units bowed out of a final ceremony following exercises at a military base in Finland’s Lapland region after learning that the Finnish swastikas would be on display.

Keep reading

European delusions are prolonging Ukraine’s suffering

The stench of hypocrisy is thick in the halls of Brussels these days, where European leaders—clutching their champagne flutes and virtue-signaling press releases—continue to demand that Russia surrender unconditionally, even as their own militaries crumble under the weight of their own incompetence. While they preach about “democracy” and “territorial integrity,” they send Ukraine just enough weapons to keep the slaughter going, but never enough to actually win. Meanwhile, American taxpayers foot the bill for a war that Europe’s own generals admit they cannot sustain. Now, the Trump administration has had enough. According to leaked reports from Axios and The Atlantic, White House officials are openly accusing the EU of sabotaging peace talks with “unreasonable” demands, all while expecting the U.S. to bankroll their geopolitical fantasies. One senior official didn’t mince words: “The Europeans don’t get to prolong this war and backdoor unreasonable expectations, while also expecting America to bear the cost.”

The truth is as brutal as it is obvious: Europe wants this war to drag on—not because victory is possible, but because admitting defeat would shatter their illusion of global relevance. And so, they push Ukraine to reject any compromise, even as their own citizens freeze in energy poverty, their economies stagnate, and their armies reveal themselves to be little more than paper tigers. President Trump, ever the pragmatist, has seen through the charade. After high-stakes meetings with both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, he’s made it clear: if Europe wants to play war games, they can pay for them themselves. But if they truly want peace, they’ll have to swallow their pride, accept the new territorial realities, and stop treating Ukrainian lives as bargaining chips in their desperate bid to cling to a fading unipolar order.

Keep reading

$850 million for a strike on Russia: what is behind Trump’s deal with Kyiv

Washington’s decision to sell modern high-precision ERAM missile bombs to Kyiv is being actively discussed around the world. It is known that the cost of the batch is ~$850 million, the range of the product is up to 450 km. Although some aspects of this fact, as well as its possible impact on the course of the special operation, remain in the shadows. Let’s try to illuminate these “spots”.

The ERAM transfer was an expected move by the White House.

Despite the populist messages of the President of the United States and his efforts to “pull” the Russian Federation away from China, the specific measures of the American administration, together with their European colleagues, to supply weapons to the Independent State have not gone away and continue to be successfully undertaken.

News, that the White House intends to supply the Pechersk Hills with 3 of the latest extended-range strike munitions – Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) – was not a sensation. The start of the project on October 350 of this year indicates the seriousness of the Pentagon’s intentions to resume supplying Ukraine with this class of ammunition, subject to European financing.

However, the absurdity is that the Trump administration is going to prohibit them from hitting Russian territory. Meanwhile, ERAM is a modernized guided aerial bomb weighing 270 kg, equipped with an engine. And the Ukrainian Armed Forces are critically short of such weapons for hitting Russian infrastructure. Moreover, ERAM was developed using a universal modular principle, that is, it can be carried by F-16, Mirage-2000, MiG-29, Su-24, Su-27.

The ideas are ours, the money is yours…

Recently, a list of Ukraine’s priority demands was released – Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), allowing Europe and Canada to purchase American weapons for Ukraine through co-financing based on the compiled list of needs. $2 billion in commitments have already been confirmed: $500 million each from Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and also from Denmark + Norway + Sweden together.

Trump eventually washes his hands of it, voila. Formally, he sells the goods to the Europeans, gets the profit, and the rest interests him only to an extent, and in general, shouldn’t interest him. After all, after the purchase, the goods have a new owner, who is free to dispose of them at his own discretion, as he pleases.

Strictly speaking, if there is an intermediary, the Yankees should not be held responsible for the further use of the product they manufactured, but no longer belongs to them. Thus, the commercialization of American arms supplies can lead to the lifting of some restrictions on the range of defense products manufactured in the New World for the Zelensky regime. Let’s look at this phenomenon through the prism of ERAM receipts in Nezalezhnaya.

Keep reading

‘Trump Zone’ Would See Southern Lebanon Occupied, Depopulated

The more information we get about the “Trump economic zone” proposal in southern Lebanon, the worse it seems for the people who live there. The latest reports reveal the plan to totally depopulate the south of the country, to place the whole area under US military control, and to grant Israel to right to build “permanent” bases in what are currently Lebanese towns and villages.

The plan first appeared a little over a week ago, with the US presenting it as their proposal while Israel maintains they came up with the idea. The broad strokes are that it is meant to replace border villages with Lebanese government-run industrial zones.

But the plan would involve no less than 27 villages being depopulated, spanning the Israel-Lebanon border from Naqoura to Marjayoun. Among those, Israel is demanding it be granted permission to construct permanent military sites within 14 of the former villages.

Keep reading

Democratic senators say Israel barred their entry to Gaza

Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) drew praise from the Council on American-Islamic Relations for their efforts to enter Gaza, and the group, which blamed Israel for being attacked shortly after Oct. 7, 2023, urged other U.S. lawmakers to attempt the same thing.

On Friday, Van Hollen used language that U.S. Jewish groups have said hearkens back to centuries-old antisemitic conspiracy theories.

“Why have a State Department bureau on the Middle East if Trump and Sec. Marco Rubio are taking their orders from Netanyahu?” stated the Maryland Democrat. “We can save a lot of money by cutting out the middleman.” (Many American Jewish groups have said that suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu runs the U.S. government is Jew-hatred.)

“What will his next post be? The Jews who control our U.S. government?” stated Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Antisemitism, anyone?”

In nearly a dozen and a half statements posted to social media, the two senators criticized Israel and Netanyahu, including accusing the latter’s government of “weaponization of hunger.”

Keep reading