Tag: perpetual war

The Iran Fiasco’s Silver Lining: Trump, Bibi, and the Neocons Got Their Clocks Cleaned

If you don’t think the Donald inhabits an alternative universe – just set your mandibles loose to chomp on his most recent missive. According to history’s most gifted practitioner of the Art of the Deal, only one thing really counts with respect to his Paperless Invite for Iran to join yet another round of negotiations: Namely, making good on their pledge to “never, ever” get a nuke, which they never, ever, ever actually had or had even pursued:

Trump: “This agreement is about one thing — that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Never ever ever. The rest of it is irrelevant, frankly.”

And just in case anyone missed the point, he further insisted that the real bad stuff that supposedly provoked the US/Israel attack in the first place – the 420 kilograms of 60% HEUs – and which the Donald had been on the verge sending in ground troops and Caterpillar earth-movers to retrieve, doesn’t matter so much any more, either!

Trump is backing away from getting Iran’s enriched material: “You could make the case, why even bother? It’s not very valuable stuff.”

That’s right. It is plain as day that the Donald is laying the ground work for a final “deal” with Iran that contains nothing more than a notional “No Nukes” pledge, gussied up by some variation of JCPOA Light.

That is, an agreement about:

  • the length in months and years of a moratorium on Iran’s fuel grade (3.67%) enrichment operations in support of its civilian nuclear power plant.
  • the scale of these civilian enrichment operations in terms of facilities and numbers and types of permitted centrifuges once they restart.
  • the intrusiveness of a renewed IAEA inspection regime.
  • the “snap-back” mechanisms designed to keep the mullahs on the straight and narrow of the overall Peace Plan.

Needless to say, the Obama folks will be proven to have done a far better job the first time around during their arduous negotiations of 2013-2015 than whatever cockamamie version emerges from a final deal that the Donald must and will sign in the shadows of the upcoming November Congressional elections.

Keep reading

The Security State’s Middle East: Why Washington Keeps Choosing Pressure Over Diplomacy

For more than twenty years now, American leaders from both parties have talked about turning over a new leaf in the Middle East. One president pushed hard for democracy promotion, another tried diplomatic outreach, and someone else swore we’d finally end the “forever wars.” Yet every time a crisis hits, Washington’s first move is rarely sitting down to hammer out a political deal. Instead, it reaches for sanctions, sends in more troops, ramps up deterrence, and leans on the threat – or actual use – of force.

This pattern raises a tough question. If the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq didn’t create stable governments, if years of pressure haven’t really changed Iran’s behavior, and if coercion keeps delivering only mixed results, why does the U.S. keep relying on the same old toolbox?

It’s not just about individual presidents or partisan fights. Republicans and Democrats argue over tactics, sure, but they all work inside a national security system that has slowly pushed military and coercive tools to the top while sidelining diplomacy and messy political solutions. The foreign policy crowd increasingly views the Middle East first through the lens of security competition and only second through its complicated politics.

More than sixty years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower warned about this in his farewell address. He talked about the “military-industrial complex” – the tight web of defense officials, contractors, and politicians that could end up warping America’s priorities. He wasn’t saying military power is useless. He worried it might become so dominant that other options would lose out. You can still read the speech on the Eisenhower Presidential Library archives. At the time it felt like a distant concern. Today it looks spot on.

The 9/11 attacks supercharged this shift. The Global War on Terror didn’t just launch invasions – it changed how Washington saw the world. Instability anywhere became a direct security threat. Local disputes turned into big strategic battles. Grievances rooted in history and society got reframed as problems that needed sanctions, surveillance, or military action. Diplomacy didn’t vanish, but it became secondary, always operating inside a security-first framework.

The Middle East shows this dynamic better than anywhere else. Take Afghanistan. At first, the invasion looked like a clear success. The Taliban fell fast, and officials in Washington talked confidently about building democracy and long-term stability. But turning military victory into a legitimate government proved far harder. We had the guns and the money, but we underestimated tribal loyalties, history, and what local people would actually accept. After twenty years, the U.S. left and the Taliban came right back. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reports laid it out plainly: unrealistic goals set in Washington, poor understanding of local realities, and timelines that ignored conditions on the ground.

Keep reading

When the Iran War Is Over: The West Bank May Be Netanyahu’s Next Front

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing perhaps the most precarious moment of his political career. He knows it. His allies know it. And his rivals – both within his coalition and across Israel’s political spectrum – are preparing to capitalize on his growing weakness.

Former Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon, who also served as deputy prime minister between 2007 and 2009, is among the latest Israeli political figures to join a growing chorus of criticism directed at Netanyahu.

“In the final result,” Ramon said in an interview with Radio Galey, cited by the Israeli outlet Srugim, “we did not win.” He then broke down that failure in blunt terms: “We did not win in Lebanon, we did not win in Iran, and we did not win against Hamas.”

Another prominent critic is former Israeli army chief Gadi Eisenkot, who joined Netanyahu’s emergency war government following the events of October 7, 2023, before resigning with Benny Gantz in June 2024.

Beyond accusing Netanyahu of failing to protect Israel on October 7, Eisenkot argues that the prime minister has effectively surrendered Israel’s political decision-making to US President Donald Trump, thereby strategically weakening Israel.

Ironically, Netanyahu’s coalition partners have often been even more opportunistic than the opposition.

Since the formation of the current coalition government on December 29, 2022 – widely regarded as the most right-wing government in Israel’s history – figures such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have repeatedly used Netanyahu’s political vulnerability to expand their own influence. Whenever Netanyahu needed political support to remain in power, they demanded concessions in return.

For Israel’s far-right extremists, Netanyahu’s inability to secure decisive strategic victories has often translated into opportunities to advance their own agendas. Every setback on the battlefield became an opening for greater settlement expansion, harsher measures against Palestinians, and deeper entrenchment of extremist policies.

Unable to deliver ‘victory’, Netanyahu turned perpetual war into a political strategy in its own right. The result has been a genocidal war in Gaza, widespread devastation in Lebanon, and a dangerous confrontation with Iran that has repeatedly brought the region to the brink of a wider catastrophe.

For a time, this formula proved politically sustainable. Netanyahu successfully enlisted unwavering US support to keep the fires of war burning. At the same time, the failure of Europe and much of the international community to hold a wanted war criminal accountable provided him with the political space necessary to continue his bloody calculations.

Yet that formula may be nearing its limits. While this possibility may appear encouraging, it comes with a serious warning. If Netanyahu can no longer sustain the wars that have prolonged his political life for nearly three years, he may escalate where resistance is weakest: the occupied West Bank.

Regarding Iran, there is growing recognition that the current confrontation is unsustainable indefinitely and that some form of arrangement will eventually emerge. Likewise, regardless of whether Lebanon is formally included in any future agreement, Israel’s ambition of permanently occupying parts of Lebanese territory remains untenable.

Historically, when Israel fails to secure a strategic breakthrough on one front, it seeks compensation on another – typically where Palestinians are most vulnerable and where international scrutiny is weakest.

As Israeli elections approach, it is therefore reasonable to fear a further escalation of the genocide in Gaza, pushing both the death toll and the level of destruction to new heights. According to Gaza health authorities, nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire agreement was announced in October, bringing the overall death toll of Israel’s genocide in Gaza to 73,000 Palestinians.

Though Israel’s war has already failed to break Palestinian steadfastness, the broader objective remains unchanged: the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza and the transformation of the Strip into a space that can no longer sustain Palestinian life.

The West Bank, however, presents a different challenge.

Keep reading

Gaza’s “Board of Peace” holds zero dollars despite billions pledged

In a stark revelation that underscores the paralysis of international reconstruction efforts, the World Bank-administered fund established for President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” in Gaza officially contains zero dollars. This finding comes despite approximately $17 billion in pledges from various nations, raising serious questions about the viability of the administration’s signature post-conflict initiative.

The board, personally chaired by Trump, was conceived to oversee the rebuilding of the devastated Palestinian enclave, but it remains a financial shell, stalled by legal uncertainty and disputes over transparency.

The empty vault: Where did the pledges go?

The core issue is a fundamental disconnect between promises and disbursement. A senior congressional aide confirmed that none of the pledged money has reached the Board of Peace. The Department of State has indicated there is no intention to route those funds through the board’s official channels. Instead of using the transparent, World Bank-administered account, the board has reportedly directed some donations into a private account at JPMorgan Chase.

This arrangement bypasses independent oversight and standard aid protocols, leaving donors and the public with limited visibility into how any funds are spent.

A king’s court or a UN-like agency?

The board’s unconventional structure has also drawn sharp criticism. Unlike traditional multilateral bodies, the Board of Peace is personally led by Trump, who retains final authority indefinitely. The charter requires countries to pay a one-billion-dollar fee for a permanent seat, a price tag that has deterred major European allies. Sen. Brian Schatz highlighted the tension between the State Department’s portrayal of the board as a standard UN-like agency and Trump’s characterization of it as a “king’s court.” Key powers like France and Britain have refused to pay the entry fee, leaving the board’s membership thin and its financial base weak.

No contracts, no construction: A stalled operation

The board has awarded no contracts for actual reconstruction projects, as it is not yet operating inside Gaza. The primary obstacle is Hamas’ refusal to disarm. Trump has linked all reconstruction aid to full demilitarization, creating a classic deadlock: the board cannot operate in Gaza without security, but security cannot be achieved without reconstruction funding. The Palestinian technocratic committee, formed to assume governance, remains unable to execute any work due to a total lack of funding. Even modest sums from Morocco and the UAE have been used primarily for staff salaries, not infrastructure.

Keep reading

UK to send Ukraine 150,000 drones

The UK will provide Ukraine with 150,000 UAVs by the end of the year, London announced on Thursday following one of Kiev’s largest drone attacks on Moscow since the start of the conflict.

The package, worth £752 million ($996 million), was announced by British Defense Secretary Dan Jarvis at a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels. According to the British government, which has been among Kiev’s most active military supporters, the package will be funded through London’s £2.26 billion loan to Kiev, backed by proceeds from frozen Russian sovereign assets.

British officials presented the package, which includes drones, missiles and radars, as necessary military support for Kiev. Chancellor Rachel Reeves pledged that London would continue backing Ukraine and putting pressure on Moscow. Russia has long argued that continued Western arms deliveries only prolong the conflict and undermine peace efforts.

The announcement came after Moscow and the surrounding region were hit by one of the largest Ukrainian drone raids in recent years. Russian air defenses intercepted 194 drones approaching the capital overnight, according to officials, but the attack still caused damage.

Local authorities reported that one drone struck the Moscow Oil Refinery in the Kapotnya district, triggering a fire, while debris damaged residential buildings, vehicles, and commercial sites, including several shopping centers.

Residents in several districts also reported black rain and soot falling from the sky after the refinery blaze, with the local authorities advising people to keep windows closed and limit time outdoors.

Keep reading

The $300 Billion Mirage: How the U.S.-Iran Deal is destined to fail because Israel won’t stop the bloodshed in Lebanon

Vice President JD Vance told CBS News that Iran “could have access” to a $300 billion reconstruction fund, funded by the Gulf Coast coalition, provided they “honor their end of the obligation.” Trump immediately denounced reports of a $300 billion payment as “Fake News, put out by the Dumocrats,” writing on Truth Social that “Iran has agreed to never have a Nuclear Weapon!”

This contradiction between the administration’s messaging and the reality of the deal raises serious concerns. The fund, as described by Vance, would be a massive financial injection into an Iranian economy that has been crippled by sanctions, a move that critics argue could free up resources for Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Trump insists the deal is about preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but the timing is suspicious. Commercial oil inventories are already 7 million barrels below the early 2022 trough and declining at a weekly rate of 11 million barrels, according to Barclays analyst Amarpreet Singh.

With the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve releases structured as loans rather than supply additions, the Trump Administration’s energy policies have left the country vulnerable. Now Trump appears to be negotiating from a position of weakness, offering financial lifelines to a regime that has repeatedly violated international agreements.

Israel’s rejection: The most dangerous wildcard

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has staked his political future on his relationship with Trump, but that relationship is now a liability. The U.S.-Iran deal leaves the Islamic Republic intact, an unpalatable prospect for Israelis across the political spectrum. Netanyahu, facing an election this fall, must contend with an agreement that effectively legitimizes Iran’s regional influence.

Israeli officials have already declared that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us,” and troops will remain in southern Lebanon despite Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi demanding a full Israeli withdrawal as part of the deal. The situation is dangerously volatile: Iran has linked the deal’s survival to Israeli compliance, while Israel has made clear it will pursue its own security interests.

If Netanyahu feels cornered politically, a preemptive strike against Iran’s deep underground nuclear facilities could trigger the exact scenario the deal is supposed to prevent. Iran has shore batteries on the islands of Hormuz and Abu Musa, missile launchers in Bandar Abbas and Jask, and the capability to block the strait within hours. The Houthis have already demonstrated in the Red Sea how easily a determined adversary can disrupt global shipping with relatively primitive weapons. Iran’s arsenal is far more sophisticated, including seaborne drones and missiles that could sink any ship attempting to navigate through. History shows that these people refuse to capitulate to one another, and years of resentment and distrust and the war in 2026 have only renewed the hatred toward one another. The U.S. Iran Deal seeks a  buyout to keep the peace, but the deal will be temporary like all the others that followed it.

Keep reading

Zelensky Gives Belarus 7-Day Ultimatum in Unexpected Threat

There continues to be growing confirmation that Zelensky has been waging his accelerated psyop campaign of empty strikes to conceal a worsening crisis in his own country. Today we were treated to footage which revealed how his latest magician’s parlor tricks work.

It turns out yesterday’s mass strikes on Moscow which were meant to coincide with the Euro Council meeting were pure Hollywood spectacle: the drones themselves were stuffed full of kerosene mixtures in the way Hollywood stages car explosions to look more “dramatic” by producing thick plumes of oily smoke.

What did you expect from the Kvartal 95 cartel? Smoke and mirrors—and latex—are their specialties.

It now makes perfect sense how Ukraine was able to fabricate such an eye-catching mise-en-scene, as each downed drone managed to pockmark the horizon with its own

In fact, much of Ukraine’s recent narratives have been rapidly falling apart. The Crimean “isolation” turned out to be a total bust, as even top Ukrainian accounts have outlined the steps Russia swiftly took to reverse any issues Ukrainian drone attacks have managed to temporarily cause.

Keep reading

Former SecAF Kendall Unwittingly Exposes The Base Problem Of The DEI Agenda

The Biden Administration’s Secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall (a West Point graduate whom a classmate said is “left of Marx”), displayed remarkable tone deafness quoted in a recent article, Pete Hegseth’s blocks on promotions rankle former military leaders, where those interviewed erroneously think SecWar Hegseth is blocking promotions because the person is black or a woman.

That is the complete opposite of what Hegseth is trying to do in eliminating DEI–throwing out selections based on skin color or sex. (Now if the person was an enthusiastic advocate for the divisive Marxist-based CRT/DEI/Woke ideology and pushed that agenda, that’s another thing).

Kendall was quoted in this article as saying,

“There seems to be an assumption that if you were a minority or a woman and you were promoted, that it was because of your identity and not because you’re good at what you do.”

Well, yeah, because you created that assumption by pushing the DEI agenda so much where people WERE promoted based on their DEI identity and not their qualifications. (See sample articles below).

Servicemembers watched this happen over and over again causing more qualified, experienced people to give up and leave or not recommend military service.

This is the whole base problem of constantly pushing the divisive DEI agenda on the military: it created an atmosphere where minorities and women (and their coworkers observing) didn’t know if they were selected because they were good at what they do or because of their skin color or gender, thus creating doubts in everyone–a horrible situation. Said one senior military officer,

“If we can’t get rid of this DEI BS, none of us of color are ever going to know if we really earned the position we are promoted into.”

Hegseth is removing DEI and its advocates and once DEI is really in the wastebin and no longer pushed and thought about, everyone can assume people are selected based on their qualifications, period. In other words, Merit.

Keep reading

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is Creating Their Own ‘Red Guard’ – A Militia Network Called the ‘Red Rabbits’

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is creating an armed paramilitary group called the ‘Red Rabbits’ which sounds almost exactly like Mao Zedong’s infamous ‘Red Guards’ in communist China.

The training tactics being described for the ‘Red Rabbits’ mirrors the tactics of Antifa and other leftist groups.

The human infrastructure for this already exists. You know those people you see marching on college campuses wearing keffiyehs and shouting free Palestine? Those are exactly the type of people who will join an outfit like this one.

City Journal reported:

Inside the DSA’s Emerging Militant Network

As its national influence has risen, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has simultaneously grown more extreme. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the group’s “Red Rabbits” initiative. The Red Rabbits Security Commission, a subgroup within the DSA focused on “community defense” efforts, is, according to its authorizing resolution, preparing for a “national uprising against federal agents and police brutality.” In practice, that means training cadres in tactics like armed and unarmed self-defense, blocking intersections, and fighting “fascists” with umbrellas.

A recent panel offered an unprecedented window into what the project looks like. Organizers from Minnesota, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Tucson, Austin, and Portland compared notes. As the discussion made clear, the DSA is trying to construct a nationwide security apparatus to support its expanding role in street protests and direct-action organizing. And in so doing, it fears drawing the attention of the Internal Revenue Service—likely with good reason.

The DSA launched the Red Rabbits Security Commission at its 2025 national convention. Organizers chose the deliberately innocuous name as a nod to the novel Watership Down, in which anthropomorphized rabbits are outnumbered and beset by enemies. Earlier branding proposals, including “National Vigilance Committee,” were deemed too politically stark, with some members concerned that they could be interpreted as an endorsement of vigilantism.

The Red Rabbits claim that their focus is on five core security skills: de-escalation, Stop the Bleed (a first aid training on bleeding control), firearm safety, unarmed self-defense, and protest marshalling (crowd management during demonstrations).

Keep reading

The Logic and Harm of the United States Launching Foreign Wars

The United States has a long history of launching foreign wars, but the logic that drives these interventions – and the harm they inevitably produce – deserves closer scrutiny. When insecurity can be artificially manufactured and war proceeds without democratic consent, the American people are left bearing the burden of decisions made in the service of political and economic interests rather than genuine national security.

The Flawed Procedure: How Presidents Bypass Congress

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war, yet modern presidents have consistently circumvented this check on executive authority. The 1973 War Powers Act was intended to limit this drift, requiring the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and mandating withdrawal within 60 days unless Congress authorizes continued hostilities. But the act contains two critical loopholes: it allows the president to determine what counts as a “war,” and it provides two to three months of unilateral military action without congressional approval.

The 2026 U.S.-Iran conflict illustrates precisely how these constitutional tensions play out. When the Trump administration launched coordinated strikes with Israel on February 28, 2026, it did so without a congressional declaration of war or an Authorization for Use of Military Force. In response, House Democrats invoked the War Powers Act, ultimately passing a resolution to restrain the president by a vote of 215 to 208. Yet the resolution remained largely symbolic; the Senate must also act, and Republican majorities in both chambers have consistently rejected similar proposals. Michael O’Hanlon and Amy McGrath summarized the fundamental problem: “One person must not have exclusive decision-making authority over matters of war and peace for the United States of America, unless there is an imminent and acute threat to the United States that requires emergency action”. When that threat does not genuinely exist, the procedure becomes a fig leaf for executive overreach.

The Costs of Conflict: What Americans Have Paid and What They Think

The U.S.-Iran war has imposed staggering financial and human costs. By mid-2026, the Pentagon acknowledged that direct operational expenses had reached approximately $29 billion. However, as Harvard economist Linda Bilmes – who accurately forecast the $3 trillion cost of the Iraq War – has warned, the true long-term burden will be far higher. Bilmes estimates that once veterans’ healthcare, weapons replenishment, and interest on borrowed war funding are included, the total cost to American taxpayers will exceed $1 trillion. Already, the war is costing roughly $2 billion per day.

Beyond direct military spending, shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have pushed oil above $100 a barrel. Americans face much higher gas prices, which peaked above $5 a gallon.  The latest Producer Price Index, tracking business input costs, showed a 6% surge from a year ago – 1.4% in April alone. Consumers are faring no better. The most recent Consumer Price Index showed consumer costs up 3.8% from a year ago, the fastest rise in three years, erasing workers’ inflation-adjusted wage gains over the past 12 months.

Public opinion has shifted dramatically as these costs have become apparent. Polls conducted before and after the outbreak of hostilities reveal a consistent pattern: Americans did not want this war, and many now resent its consequences. Early polls after the war began found a slim plurality opposed it: 48% to 43%. By May, disapproval surged to 58%, with only 38% supporting the war. Only 25% believed the Trump administration’s claim that Iran posed an imminent threat, and 56% said the administration should have sought congressional approval first.

By April, concerns widened. More than six in 10 Americans said Trump lacked a clear plan, and two-thirds said the war’s goals were unexplained. Majorities said the U.S. had failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, stop Iran’s nuclear programs, or secure freedom for Iranians. A Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey in early May found Americans see the war’s impact as negative for the U.S. cost of living (86%), international relations (72%), reputation (72%), and national security (65%). Majorities said the administration hadn’t consulted allies, limited casualties, or pursued negotiations. A plurality called the war stalemated. Few believed Iran would comply with a peace deal; 48% lacked confidence the U.S. would comply.

Keep reading