Tag: perpetual war

The US-Saudi Nuclear Deal Makes No Sense

A few points on the shocking U.S.–Saudi nuclear deal announced.

1. This reflects a weaker American bargaining position, not a stronger one.

The broader context is China. The Biden administration pursued a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, as part of a broader expansion of Trump’s Abraham Accords, in part to pull Riyadh closer to Washington and away from Beijing. But Washington’s position has deteriorated since then. The credibility of the U.S. security umbrella has weakened, GCC states have become more strategically autonomous, and Saudi Arabia has gained leverage by diversifying its partnerships.

The result appears to be that Washington had to offer substantially more to try to keep Saudi from drifting further toward China, while getting substantially less in return.

2. By any historical standard, this is an extraordinary Saudi victory.

Compared to previous negotiations, Riyadh has secured remarkable concessions. It no longer appears to have to normalize relations with Israel as part of the package. It is reportedly not required to sign a traditional Section 123 agreement that would deprive KSA of enrichment technology. And there are no comprehensive IAEA safeguards comparable to those Washington has long insisted upon elsewhere.

If these reports hold, Saudi Arabia has achieved what few thought Washington would ever accept.

3. Biden was going down the same path…

The Biden administration reportedly considered similar arrangements, but its efforts were derailed by the repercussions of the October 7 attacks.

Biden officials also understood the risks, although it did not prevent them from pursuing it and signalling willingness to offer Saudi major nuclear concessions. Some of the contingency ideas reportedly discussed bordered on the surreal: having American troops physically guard Saudi enrichment facilities from the Saudis themselves, or designing systems that would allow the United States to disable – or even destroy remotely – the facilities if necessary.

The fact that such safeguards were seriously contemplated should itself have been a warning. If your proposal requires extraordinary mechanisms to prevent your own ally from using the technology you are providing, perhaps the proposal is fundamentally flawed.

4. This may prove a stepping stone toward an even greater disaster: Security Guarantees for Saudi

As Rosemary Kelanic points out, this deal provides Riyadh with leverage it can use in the future to force Washington to provide it with security guarantees. Saudi Arabia can threaten to build nuclear weapons unless the U.S. offers it Article 5-level security guarantees – a disastrous move that would further entangle the US in the region militarily instead of allowing America to come home from the Middle East.

As Kelanic argues, there is ample historical precedent. South Korea and West Germany both advanced nuclear programs that alarmed Washington. Rather than allowing them to acquire nuclear weapons, the United States ultimately strengthened its military commitments and security guarantees in exchange for abandoning those programs.

As a result, this nuclear deal may prove to be a prelude to an even more damaging concession to Saudi down the road.

5. This likely weakens Washington’s negotiating position with Iran.

If there is eventually another U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement, today’s decision establishes an entirely new benchmark.

It becomes impossible to argue that Saudi Arabia may enrich uranium while Iran cannot, although Tehran was never going to accept zero enrichment in the first place. But proposals that earlier had been entertained – such as a 5- to 10-year moratorium on enrichment – may now also be out of reach.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, it becomes harder to insist on intrusive international inspections for Iran while accepting a far lighter non-IAEA inspection regime for Saudi Arabia. And it becomes much more difficult to portray enrichment itself as an unacceptable proliferation risk.

Washington has made the type of deal it wants from Iran more complicated.

6. Israel has every reason to be deeply unhappy.

Much attention will focus on the loss of the Saudi normalization card, which has been one of Israel’s strategic objectives.

But the more consequential issue may be that Saudi Arabia now appears to have a far more credible pathway toward a nuclear weapons capability should it ever choose to pursue one.

That represents a fundamental shift in Israel’s long-term strategic environment.

7. Is this about widening the war with Iran?

Possibly. One interpretation is that Washington made these concessions to secure greater Saudi cooperation in the current (or a future) confrontation with Tehran.

But Tehran itself does not appear particularly alarmed.

Saudi Arabia’s direct military contribution to a war with Iran would likely remain limited, and the Kingdom’s participation does little to alter Iran’s fundamental geographic advantages in the Persian Gulf. More importantly, Saudi leaders have spent years trying to reduce—not increase—the risk of becoming a battlefield in a U.S.-Iran conflict.

If that remains Riyadh’s strategic priority, this agreement is unlikely to fundamentally change the military balance in the war.

Keep reading

Monster fire breaks out near Area 51 sparking theories of secret weapon testing

A massive fire has broken out near the highly classified Area 51 base in Nevada, sparking theories that a secret weapon was recently tested.

The blaze, dubbed the Quail Springs Fire, sparked on Saturday and has since burned through more than 4,400 acres. 

The fire is located in Lincoln County, Nevada, just south of Rachel, burning near Bald Mountain on the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) withdrawn lands.

As of Monday, zero percent of the wildfire is contained as it spreads within the Nevada Test and Training Range, a military training area restricted to the public.

While officials said the fire was started by lightning, online users believe something more sinister is at play. Commenting on a livestream showing the blaze outside of Area 51, many people suggested a secret weapon was to blame.

‘I don’t want to be that guy, but I wonder if they’re testing DEW (Directed Energy Weapons), and this is the result of such,’ one viewer shared, referring to advanced systems that use lasers, high-power microwaves or particle beams to destroy targets.

Another commented, ‘Maybe they tested a new dumb weapon and blew themselves up lol,’ while another suggested the fire was to ‘burn the evidence’ of aliens.

Area 51 has become a cultural phenomenon thanks to decades of conspiracy theories connecting the base to UFOs, aliens and experimental aircraft testing.

Officials noted that no evacuations have been ordered, and no structures are threatened. 

They also said no residences or public spaces are currently threatened.

YouTuber Dreamland Resort captured footage of the fire, showing columns of smoke around Bald Mountain, the highest peak in the Groom Range, located directly inside the restricted military zone of Area 51.

The fire is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, which is listed as the landowner for Area 51 and surrounding regions. 

‘The Quail Springs Fire experienced moderate growth, primarily due to winds, high temperatures, and low relative humidity,’ according to officials with the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), one of the agencies working to control the blaze. 

‘Firefighters are utilizing a confine and contain strategy, rather than full suppression.’ 

Twenty-six personnel are currently assigned to the fire under the direction of a Type 3 incident commander. 

Because the blaze is burning inside a restricted military training area, crews are working to contain it rather than attempting a direct attack.

Keep reading

Iran Blasts “Freeloader” Zelensky For Ordering Deadly Attack On Caspian Vessel “At Israel’s Behest”

Iran has accused Ukraine of attacking an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea, which it says resulted in an explosion that killed one sailor and injured another.

As we previously reported of the Saturday maritime incident, Ukraine seems to be openly boasting of this escalation. President Zelensky himself announced soon after on X, “We also have very good results from long-range strikes in the waters of the Caspian Sea. In particular, these are vessels that were involved in transporting military cargo from Iran, and a warship.”

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned Ukraine’s chargé d’affaires in Tehran to severely protest the “hostile and criminal” attack on Saturday, IRNA reported. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has further warned that the “blatant UN Charter violation” which was “done at Israel’s behest” could serve to “drag Europe into its war.” Araghchi also denounced and attacked Zelensky personally, calling him the “freeloader in Kyiv”…

The risk of the Russia-Ukraine conflict merging with the US-Iran conflict seems plausible, but still remains low, and yet the Caspian Sea situation shows that it is actually possible. The Iranians have sought alternative trade and shipping routes via the Caspian, and early in Operation Epic Fury Israeli warplanes reportedly targeted and took out Iranian naval vessels there.

This isn’t the first time that FM Araghchi has called out Zelensky. Back in January of this year, for example, he called Zelensky a “confused clown”, and said that the Ukrainian leader had been “rinsing American and European taxpayers to fill the pockets of his corrupt generals.” The two countries have previously clashed over Iran supplying Russia with Shahed suicide drones.

Keep reading

The United Nations Has Run Out Of Alibis

Institutions built to prevent atrocities eventually face the question of what they actually protect. For the United Nations, voting patterns, internal investigations and its own decisions this year no longer support the fiction of neutrality. An UNRWA school in Gaza sat above a Hamas tunnel shaft and three anti-tank positions, and its own principal was on the payroll of both institutions at once – a fact that American investigators, not the UN, brought to light.

The pattern is old: during the oil-for-food scandal, a mid-level program director faced US prosecution while the officials who managed the program from above kept their positions. When UN failures surface, line staff absorb the exposure. The people who set the policy rarely do.

The arithmetic alone dismantles the pretense of balance. In 2025 the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted 15 resolutions targeting Israel, and only 11 addressing the rest of the planet combined – a tally covering North Korea, Iran, Myanmar, Russia and the United States together. From 2015 through 2024, the total reached 173 resolutions against Israel, compared to 80 for all other member states combined. The UN Human Rights Council has run comparable numbers since 2006, adopting 112 resolutions against Israel compared to 45 against Syria, despite a civil war there that killed hundreds of thousands.

On Nov. 20, 2025, the UNGA’s Fourth Committee passed six resolutions condemning Israel while producing not a single resolution on Sudan, where fighting has killed more than 150,000 people and driven 12 million from their homes. The bloc that commands the UNGA’s automatic majority sets these priorities; the scale of actual human suffering has nothing to do with it.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) supplies the starkest illustration. After October 7, the agency’s own internal review found that nine employees may have taken part in the massacre – a figure that American investigators have since made look negligible. According to USAID:

“The USAID Office of Inspector General (USAID OIG), a statutorily independent law enforcement and oversight entity, has referred for suspension/debarment consideration the names of 101 current or former staff at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) for participation in the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks and/or affiliation with the military wing (al-Qassam Brigades) of Hamas. Among the individuals referred were UNRWA school principals, teachers, security personnel, attendants, psychosocial counselors, and medical professionals, including:

– A deputy school principal serving as an al-Qassam deputy company commander in the Ain Gallout/5th infantry battalion.
– A deputy school principal serving as squad leader for the Khan Younis Brigade/2nd infantry battalion.
– A teacher serving as squad leader in Hamas’ military security department/intelligence unit who tracked assignment of explosive devices.
– A teacher serving as a platoon commander of the Central Brigade/Al Quds 2nd Battalion.
– A math & computer teacher with ties to an al-Qassam intelligence squad.
– A teacher with expertise as a sniper for Hamas.
– A teacher and Hamas soldier with orders to bring two anti-tank missiles to a prescribed location during the October 7 terror attacks.
– A deputy school principal serving as a platoon commander in Hamas’ Nuseirat battalion with communications responsibilities on October 7th.
– A school principal assigned to the chemical department of a Hamas military manufacturing unit whose school had three anti-tank positions and a tunnel shaft located under the facility.”

One of those referred, Hafez Mousa Mohammed Mousa, coordinated with fellow operatives during the Oct. 7 massacre while running an UNRWA school, and became the first person affiliated with a UN humanitarian agency ever debarred by the US government for terrorism. Under mounting pressure, UNRWA itself dismissed 70 staff linked to terrorist organizations in Gaza in the weeks before the referral was published, an admission that followed the release of evidence rather than the agency’s own vetting. Groups tracking UNRWA’s personnel put the true scale of Hamas penetration considerably higher, closer to 1,500 employees still drawing a UN salary.

Keep reading

The Documents Washington Never Wanted Released

The White House has now released a series of declassified election-integrity documents that the administration says expose what it describes as the largest compromise of American voter data in history. The release followed President Trump’s heated nationally televised address Thursday night, where he argued that China systematically acquired sensitive voter information during the 2020 election cycle and that intelligence surrounding the operation was buried inside the bureaucracy rather than presented honestly to elected leadership.

For years, the focus has been on Russia while China quietly expanded its economic, technological, and intelligence footprint throughout the West. China does not think in election cycles. It thinks in decades as the ancient culture understands cycles. Every major strategic objective is pursued patiently through economic leverage, technology, data collection, academia, corporations, and political influence. Elections become merely another avenue for intelligence gathering and long-term strategic positioning.

According to the newly released material highlighted by the White House, Chinese actors allegedly obtained information on roughly 220 million American voter records. The administration claims the information included voter registration data, addresses, party affiliation, and other identifying information that could be used to map voting populations across the United States. President Trump described it as “the largest compromise of election data in history” and ordered further investigations into both the alleged intrusion and the government’s handling of the intelligence.

The administration further alleges that portions of this intelligence never reached the President in full during the 2020 election cycle and that internal disputes inside the intelligence community resulted in information being minimized or withheld. Those claims are now at the center of renewed investigations following the release of the declassified files.

Whether every allegation ultimately withstands scrutiny is now the question investigators must answer. It is important to distinguish between allegations contained in newly released documents and conclusions that have been independently established. Previous U.S. intelligence assessments issued after the 2020 election concluded they did not find evidence that China successfully altered votes or election infrastructure, although there has long been bipartisan concern over Chinese cyber activity and influence operations. Those earlier conclusions are directly challenged by the current administration’s interpretation of the newly declassified material.

Keep reading

The Spark in Tell: How a Village Resistance Disrupted Israel’s West Bank Strategy

During a military raid on the small town of Tell, southwest of Nablus, a moment of direct defiance shattered the illusion of total Palestinian submission.

Faced with relentless military incursions, land confiscation, and settler harassment and violence, local villagers and farmers refused to retreat.

In the confrontation that followed, a single Palestinian disarmed an Israeli soldier and opened fire on the invading forces near the illegal Havat Gilad settlement outpost, killing two soldiers and wounding three others.

What followed was the predictable, unyielding fury of the occupation: Israeli forces and state-backed armed settlers immediately launched a series of raids across Tell and neighboring communities, killing four Palestinians, setting fire to homes, and converting residential buildings into field interrogation centers.

In a swift collective punishment campaign, Israeli occupation troops detained over 70 Palestinians – including more than 40 in Tell alone – while expanding military incursions into Jenin, Tubas, Tulkarm, Ramallah, Hebron (Al-Khalil), Bethlehem, and Jericho.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz promptly ordered a “wide-scale military operation,” while UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese unequivocally condemned the combined army-settler assaults as “pogroms against defenseless civilians,” reiterating calls for an immediate arms embargo and trade sanctions against Israel.

Yet to understand the spark in Tell, one must understand the explosive pressure cooker that the occupied West Bank has become.

Netanyahu’s Primitive Calculus

Netanyahu’s immediate response to the incident in Tell was not a departure from policy, but the activation of an old, entrenched doctrine: every act of Palestinian resistance – no matter how localized – must be weaponized to accelerate the state-sponsored theft of Palestinian land.

For decades, Israel’s security apparatus has used local resistance as cover to achieve long-standing demographic and territorial ambitions. Under the current far-right coalition, this strategy has reached unprecedented levels of speed and brutality.

The Scale of Destruction

Since October 2023, while global media attention focused primarily on the horrors in Gaza, Israel systematically expanded its offensive across the occupied West Bank:

  • Over 1,090 Palestinians – including at least 239 children – have been killed by Israeli forces and state-backed armed settlers.
  • Over 6,800 Palestinians have been injured by live ammunition, shrapnel, and physical assaults, with settler attacks alone accounting for a surging majority of recent civilian injuries.
  • More than 10,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced due to home demolitions, violent settler rampages, and severe access restrictions. Entire Bedouin and rural communities across the South Hebron Hills and the Jordan Valley have been systematically depopulated and cleansed.
  • Over 11,000 Palestinians have been swept into detention through military night raids, held under arbitrary administrative detention without charge or trial.
  • Under Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich – who was granted official authority over civilian affairs in the West Bank – the Israeli government declared tens of thousands of dunams of Palestinian territory as “state land,” marking the largest continuous land grabs since the Oslo Accords. Concurrently, dozens of illegal settler outposts were retroactively legalized, and thousands of new settlement housing units were advanced.

Keep reading

The Empire’s Mirror – How Western Imperialism has Alienated the Planet

The Democracy Perception Index 2026 is a global survey covering over ninety percent of the world’s population. It has produced results that confound nearly every assumption underlying the Western foreign-policy consensus. The United States, self-declared champion of the rules-based international order, now ranks among the most negatively perceived countries on earth. When the world is asked to choose sides in active geopolitical conflicts, it sides against Washington again and again – overwhelmingly with Palestine over Israel, and almost unanimously against American military bases on foreign soil. China is seen more favorably than the United States across most of the planet. And none of this, the study finds, reflects a turn against democracy itself – support for democratic governance remains strong globally. What the world is turning against is the behavior of the states that claim to lead it.

There is a moment in the history of empires when the internal logic of power becomes visible to everyone except those exercising it. That moment, documented with clinical precision in the ninth edition of the Democracy Perception Index (DPI), published in the spring of 2026 by Nira Data in collaboration with the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, has now arrived for the United States and its closest allies. The study – the largest annual survey of its kind, drawing on nationally representative interviews with more than 94,000 respondents across 98 countries representing over ninety percent of the global population – was designed, one suspects, to demonstrate the enduring appeal of the democratic model promoted from Washington and Brussels. What it demonstrates instead is a historic collapse of American prestige, a profound disenchantment with Western-led institutions, and a global public opinion that has quietly but unmistakably reordered its moral loyalties. The United States now ranks among the five most negatively perceived countries on earth, alongside North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran – and Israel, its closest military client. It loses three of the five geopolitical conflicts the survey puts to the world’s citizens. In 86 of 97 countries, majorities oppose hosting American military bases. For the first time in the survey’s history, the United States is seen slightly more negatively than Russia. China, meanwhile, is viewed more favorably than the United States in 63 of 83 surveyed countries, including across most of Europe.

The Alliance of Democracies Foundation, which co-publishes this index, was founded by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former NATO Secretary General and Danish Prime Minister, and exists explicitly to advance Western-style liberal democracy. Nira Data, the Danish firm that conducts the research, describes its mission as giving voice to the global public in service of democratic values. This is not a study produced by critics of the West. It is a study produced by its institutional advocates, and that fact lends the findings a peculiar authority: they arrive not as a verdict from outside but as an involuntary confession from within. Rasmussen’s own foreword acknowledges the data while reaching, almost desperately, for an explanation that absolves Western policy – blaming “threats” that Europeans are not perceiving clearly enough, urging democratic leaders to offer “a vision of optimism and hope.” What the study’s authors cannot bring themselves to say plainly, the numbers say for them: the world does not trust the West, and the reasons are not a mystery.

Unlike conventional democracy indices that rely on expert assessments of laws and institutions, the DPI asks citizens directly how they experience political life. It surveys eight dimensions – the impact of elections, freedom of speech, political pluralism, civic education, separation of powers, rule of law, government transparency, and peaceful transitions of power – then tracks how populations across the globe perceive the United States, China, Russia, and one another, and asks which side respondents support in five live or latent geopolitical conflicts. The result is a portrait of the world as billions of people actually see it, not as Western governments and their affiliated think tanks wish it to be seen.

What that portrait reveals, at its most fundamental level, is a global public that believes in democracy – across virtually every region and culture – but defines it in terms that diverge sharply from the definition promoted by Washington and its allies. More than two-thirds of people worldwide say it is extremely or very important for their country to be a democracy. The demand for self-governance, for fair institutions, for the peaceful transfer of power, is not in retreat. But when the survey asks what people consider democracy’s most important purpose, the answers reorder the priorities that Western leaders typically invoke. In 62 percent of countries surveyed, the top answer is improving living standards and well-being for everyone. Only 18 percent of countries prioritize promoting a fair and peaceful society, and a mere 9 percent – a figure that should give pause to every speechwriter who invokes “protecting individual rights and freedoms” as democracy’s defining purpose – place that goal first. Only in the United States itself, along with Germany, Italy, and Canada, does the protection of individual freedoms rise to the top.

This is not, as Western commentators tend to assume, evidence of authoritarian conditioning or political naivety among the global poor. It is evidence of rational prioritization. For billions of people across the Global South, in South Asia, in sub-Saharan Africa, in the Middle East and Latin America, the question of whether one can freely criticize the government on social media is less pressing than whether one’s children will have food, healthcare, and security from violence – including the violence that frequently arrives with Western “assistance.” The DPI data make this legible in a single, devastating comparison. The most positively perceived countries in the world are not the largest democracies or the most militarily powerful: they are Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Sweden, Italy, and Norway – countries associated, in the global imagination, with neutrality and the absence of aggression, social provision, good education, health care and security. The least positively perceived, in descending order of loathing, are Israel, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, and the United States. What distinguishes the top from the bottom is not the presence or absence of elections. It is the presence or absence of violence.

Keep reading

The American Presidency and Perpetual War

One of the defining failures of modern American government has been the steady erosion of Congress’s constitutional authority over war. The Constitution grants Congress — not the president — the power to declare war. Congress decides to go to war. The president wages it.

Over the past several decades, presidents of both major parties have increasingly treated military intervention as an executive prerogative rather than a congressional requirement.

The last six presidents have not reflected distinct foreign policy doctrines but a uniparty continuum of executive overreach. While the particulars differ, each administration has initiated or significantly expanded military action without a formal declaration of war or without clear evidence that the targeted country posed an imminent threat to the United States.

President George H.W. Bush assembled an international coalition following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Congress ultimately authorized the use of military force. However, it was not a defensive war; it fostered the growing post-Cold War assumption that the United States should act as the world’s policeman.

President Bill Clinton likewise employed military force without declarations of war. The 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo conflict proceeded despite Congress failing to authorize it in a clear and lasting manner. The administration argued humanitarian intervention justified military action. But even compelling humanitarian concerns do not erase the Constitution’s allocation of war powers.

President George W. Bush fundamentally reshaped American foreign policy after the Sept. 11 attacks. The invasion of Afghanistan initially enjoyed broad support and congressional authorization in response to al-Qaeda’s attacks. However, the 2003 invasion of Iraq remains one of the most controversial and catastrophic military actions in modern American history.

Congress did authorize force, but the constitutional process was undermined by intelligence failures and exaggerated claims about weapons of mass destruction and links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that ultimately proved unfounded. We now know that Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States warranting a preventive war. The conflict resulted in enormous human suffering, significant financial costs, regional instability and expanded executive authority that future presidents would inherit.

President Barack Obama accelerated executive war-making despite his early criticism of the Iraq War. His 2011 intervention in Libya stands as perhaps the clearest example. The United States joined NATO air operations that helped overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, yet Congress never authorized the intervention. The administration argued that the operation did not constitute “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution because American forces faced limited risk and most of the killing was done by U.S. intelligence assets.

President Joe Biden continued this pattern through military operations in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, strikes against Iranian-backed militias — and by funding Ukraine’s war against Russia. The administration justified these actions primarily as force protection, counterterrorism, responses to attacks on U.S. personnel, or defense of democracy and sovereignty. None of these rationales substitutes for congressional authorization.

Moreover, Russia, Ukraine and the U.S. are members of the United Nations. Like the U.N. or not, the U.N. Charter is a treaty written by U.S. officials and ratified by the Senate. Under the Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land along with the Constitution itself. The U.N. Charter prohibits all war except for immediate defensive purposes or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council; neither of which is the case with Ukraine.

President Donald Trump famously campaigned against “endless wars,” yet his administration launched missile strikes against Syria in 2017 and 2018 without congressional approval, assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq in January 2020, commenced the current unlawful and meaningless war against Iran, now in its third stage of combat, and he has financed Israeli expansion — all without congressional authorization.

He has famously indicated that he rejects the constitutional role of treaties and the international laws written pursuant to them. He has even threatened to annihilate the Iranian/Persian civilization.

Keep reading

‘I Almost Cried’: Unreleased Documentary Footage Shows Lindsey Graham Celebrating Start of Iran War

Footage from an unreleased documentary about the late Lindsey Graham shows the notoriously hawkish senator celebrating the start of the US-Israeli war against Iran just days after the bombing campaign started.

“Look what we’ve done here. I almost cried. How long have we been pushing this?” a laughing Graham is heard saying in the footage, released by Alex Holder, a filmmaker granted extensive access to the South Carolina senator in the years leading up to his death.

Graham goes on to say that he spoke with President Trump, who he said was also very happy about the war. “I talked to Trump this morning, he’s jacked, he said, ‘best thing I have ever done.’ He loves blowing stuff up,” he said.

Graham then appeared to take credit for helping convince Trump to launch the war. “There are a lot of people inside who didn’t want to do it, so I had my challenges,” he said, adding that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were like “Roosevelt and Churchill.”

Holder also released footage of a phone call between Graham and Netanyahu from early March, during which Graham said he was going to travel to Florida to meet with President Trump to convince him to join Israel’s bombing campaign in Lebanon, but Netanyahu talked him out of it.

“We’re concentrating right now on Iran,” Netanyahu told Graham. “If we tell Hezbollah that we’re going all the way, we threaten them, but if we actually do it, then they have no reason not to go all the way against us. And right now that’s not our interest.”

Graham had a close relationship with Netanyahu and spoke with him frequently and visited Israel often. Holder told The Wall Street Journal that he joined Graham in a trip to Israel and likened his treatment there to how a prime minister or a king would be treated.

Graham was also known as someone who could work with Democrats, and Holder released a call between him and Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security advisor.

According to the Journal, Sullivan asked Graham how long the war would last. “In three to four weeks, we’re going to have them in a spot where they start losing control of some cities,” Graham replied. “Get the Arabs more openly involved tomorrow, and then have almost irreversible momentum.”

Keep reading

The ‘Projects’ That Could Ignite The Next World War

The Military, Industrial and Strategic Programs Reshaping the World in 2026

The most dangerous geopolitical developments of 2026 are not necessarily the weapons that have already been fired, but the systems being constructed in anticipation of the next crisis. Across Europe, the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East, governments are committing extraordinary resources to military production, strategic infrastructure, weapons procurement and long-term defence planning, creating a global security environment in which preparation for war has itself become one of the defining features of international politics. The official justification is almost always deterrence: stronger armies are supposed to prevent aggression, larger stockpiles are supposed to make adversaries think twice and new military infrastructure is supposed to close the gaps that might otherwise invite attack. Yet deterrence has an inherent paradox. Every military capability built by one state is examined by another as a potential threat, and every response can then be used to justify another round of preparation. What emerges is not necessarily an organized march toward a single global conflict, but something more unstable: a collection of increasingly sophisticated military projects operating simultaneously across several regions, each designed to prevent war while potentially making the consequences of miscalculation far more severe.

The scale of this transformation is no longer a matter of speculation. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military expenditure reached approximately $2.887 trillion in 2025, marking the eleventh consecutive year of growth. European military spending increased by 14% to approximately $864 billion, while military expenditure in Asia and Oceania rose by 8.1% to around $681 billion. The United States remained the world’s largest military spender at approximately $954 billion, followed by China at $336 billion and Russia at $190 billion. Together, those three countries accounted for roughly 51% of global military expenditure. SIPRI also reported that European NATO members increased spending sharply, while China’s military expenditure continued a decades-long upward trajectory and Taiwan increased its own military spending by approximately 14% in 2025. These figures do not prove that a world war is approaching, but they reveal an international system in which the largest military powers are simultaneously expanding or restructuring their strategic capabilities.

Keep reading