Tag: perpetual war

Raytheon delivers advanced radar to U.S. for tracking hypersonic threats

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency has received the first AN/TPY-2 advanced radar system to defend against next-generation threats.

The new AN/TPY-2 system was built by Raytheon and comes equipped with a complete Gallium Nitride, or GaN, populated array, giving it greater sensitivity to missiles and expanding surveillance capacity while supporting the U.S.‘s hypersonic defense mission, according to the company.

“This is the most advanced version of AN/TPY-2 that Raytheon has built, leveraging years of investment and innovation to produce superior capability at a lower cost to the U.S. armed forces,” Sam Deneke, president of air and space defense systems at Raytheon, said in a statement. “As demand increases for missile defense of the homeland, the AN/TPY-2 radar is ready to meet the mission.”

Keep reading

Israel Preparing Possible Preemptive Attack On Iranian Nuclear Facilities: US Intelligence

At a moment it has become very clear that Netanyahu could care less about ‘pressure’ from Western allies the US, UK, and Canada, there are breaking reports Tuesday evening that a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites could be imminent. According to CNN:

The US has obtained new intelligence suggesting that Israel is making preparations to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, even as the Trump administration has been pursuing a diplomatic deal with Tehran, multiple US officials familiar with the latest intelligence told CNN.

Such a strike would be a brazen break with President Donald Trump, US officials said. It could also risk tipping off a broader regional conflict in the Middle East — something the US has sought to avoid since the war in Gaza inflamed tensions beginning in 2023.

The same report underscores that no ‘final decision’ has been made yet, and this is perhaps another ploy by the Israelis to show the West and the Mideast region that it means business, in the wake of “Israel’s 9/11” – the Oct.7, 2023 Hamas terror attacks. 

The late in the day headline resulted in an immediate spike in oil prices… 

The United Kingdom on Tuesday suspended its free-trade agreement negotiations with Israel over the growing Gaza crisis, and after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressed disgust at newly expanded Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip, also as famine threats at least 500,000 Palestinians.

Starmer described that he and his French and Canadian counterparts are “horrified” by the Netanyahu government’s escalation in Gaza. This also comes as international headlines and warnings grow more dire. For example Al Jazeera has the following new headline: “Starving Palestinians resort to eating animal feed, flour mixed with sand”.

“We repeat our demand for a ceasefire as the only way to free the hostages, we repeat our opposition to settlements in the West Bank, and we repeat our demand to massively scale up humanitarian assistance into Gaza,” Starmer told parliament.

Keep reading

Starve the people, miss the point: The cruel logic of sanctions

Sanctions have become a preferred instrument in international diplomacy applied either to avoid war or when war is politically unpalatable. In theory, sanctions are meant to pressure countries into changing their political course or forcing them into compliance with demands, usually by Western powers, over certain issues of dispute. According to a 2023 UN report, the US, UK, EU and Canada are “prolific” users of sanctions, including banking sanctions that affect the entire population of a targeted country.

Yet sanctions – especially those aimed at entire economies – have repeatedly failed to force political change. Instead, they often cause devastating consequences for civilians while leaving political elites unscathed. They simply morph into a collective punishment against an entire population.

History is replete with examples when sanctions have punished populations far more than they have pressured governments. From Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Iran and North Korea, sanctions raise a fundamental question: how does the UN, a body founded to promote peace and human dignity, justify the use of tools that so often inflict collective suffering? The preamble to the UN Charter says the UN is “to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.” At the same time, Article 41 of the same document gives the UN Security Council (UNSC) full power to impose sanctions including the “interruption” of communications such as the postal service.

Zealous supporters of sanctions, quite deceptively, came up with a term to minimize their devastating human cost. They describe them as “smart” or “targeted,” meaning they only target the political class and elites while minimally affecting the wider population. However, this is not the case in reality. Sanctions, both smart and otherwise, include assets freeze, travel bans, economic boycotts, diplomatic isolations and threats with penalizing measures.

Keep reading

US should never have intervened in Ukraine – Trump

US President Donald Trump has rebuked his predecessor, Joe Biden, for funneling vast amounts of American taxpayer money into a foreign conflict that “should have remained a European situation.”

Speaking to reporters at the White House following a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday, Trump expressed frustration over the “crazy” scale of US involvement in the Ukraine conflict. He reiterated that it is “not our war” and stressed that his administration is working to end it through diplomacy.

“This is not our war. This is not my war… I mean, we got ourselves entangled in something that we shouldn’t have been involved in. And we would have been a lot better off – and maybe the whole thing would have been better off – because it can’t be much worse. It’s a real mess,” Trump said.

Keep reading

‘There Are Chinese Spies At Stanford’: Bombshell Report Reveals CCP Student Espionage

Astudent newspaper at Stanford University dropped a bombshell report earlier this month revealing “there are Chinese spies at Stanford.”

The report, titled “Uncovering Chinese Academic Espionage at Stanford,” was published by The Stanford Review, an independent student-run newspaper. This alarming investigation is based on “over a dozen interviews conducted between July 2024 and April 2025, involving Stanford faculty members, current and former students, and independent experts specializing in Chinese intelligence operations and technology transfer.”

The report highlights three critical findings. First, it exposes that the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Ministry of State Security (MSS) is actively recruiting or coercing Chinese students and scholars at Stanford to serve as “non-traditional” intelligence assets. The MSS demands these individuals gather information that it deems valuable. Rather than targeting classified documents, the MSS is focused on obtaining “the know-how behind American innovation,” which encompasses “conclusions from Stanford research projects, methodologies, software, lab workflows, collaborative structures, and even communication channels.” The agency is particularly interested in information related to artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics.

Fears of Harassment, Losing Scholarships

The Stanford report underscores a critical nuance: not all Chinese students and scholars on campus are engaged in espionage for China. However, those who are involved often operate under vastly different motivations. While some choose to cooperate with the MSS voluntarily, others are unwitting victims of their government, acting out of fear, as highlighted by the Stanford Review. Reports indicate that some Chinese students feel pressured by MSS handlers in the U.S. who closely monitor their actions. The threat of repercussions, such as harassment of their family members back in China, looms large for these students.

Moreover, a pervasive fear of losing scholarships supplied by the Chinese government plays a significant role in this dynamic. The Stanford Review highlights the China Scholarship Council (CSC), a leading Chinese government agency that funds between 7 and 18 percent of Chinese students studying in the United States. Its sponsorship comes with stringent conditions: Students must align their research with state priorities, particularly those outlined in the government’s “Made-in-China 2025” industrial initiative. Furthermore, scholarship recipients must pass a loyalty test, pledge allegiance to the CCP, and agree to return to China upon completing their studies.

In addition, while studying in the U.S., the CSC mandates that sponsored students submit regular “situation reports” detailing their research to Chinese diplomatic missions, further emphasizing the controlling nature of this scholarship program. These students’ family members in China often serve as guarantors of these scholarships, and these guarantors will face financial penalties should their students “violate” the arrangement or refuse to go back to China.

Keep reading

US to Spend $1 Trillion on Nuclear Weapons Over Next Decade

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Washington will spend $1 trillion from 2025 to 2034 on modernizing and operating America’s strategic arsenal.

“If carried out, DoD’s and DOE’s plans to operate, sustain, and modernize current nuclear forces and purchase new forces would cost a total of $946 billion over the 2025–2034 period, or an average of about $95 billion a year, CBO estimates,” the report says.

The spending includes $357 billion on operating nuclear weapons and delivery systems, $460 billion on modernization projects, and $130 billion in expected cost overruns. The CBO report notes that Pentagon plans often cost significantly more than projected.

The forecast in this year’s CBO report is $93 billion higher than the estimate produced last year.

“Weapons programs frequently cost more than originally budgeted amounts for a variety of reasons.” It continues, “If nuclear force programs exceeded planned amounts at roughly the same rates that costs for similar programs have grown in the past, they would cost an additional $129 billion over the next decade, $33 billion more over 10 years than CBO estimated in 2023.”

Washington is in the process of a major nuclear weapons upgrade. The US is developing a new bomber, an intercontinental ballistic missile, and a submarine capable of firing nuclear weapons.

Keep reading

‘Zero enrichment’ fantasies will lead us to war

President Donald Trump told reporters Monday that “very good things” are happening in his nuclear diplomacy with Iran, adding, “I think they’re being very reasonable thus far.” His optimistic tone was echoed by Iranian diplomats and Omani mediators, with Iran’s foreign minister describing the talks this weekend as “more serious” and “more detailed” than past meetings. Yet behind the upbeat rhetoric, a more complex and challenging reality is taking shape.

While earlier rounds made progress toward limiting—though not eliminating—Iran’s nuclear enrichment, even prompting parallel technical discussions, the latest round saw a slight reversal. The setback stemmed from the U.S. insistence on the unrealistic demand that Iran abandon domestic enrichment entirely.

Shutting down Iran’s more than 20,600 centrifuges is not required to achieve Trump’s stated goal of preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon. Nonetheless, it remains a long-standing demand of hardliners such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton. Many of them understood that insisting on total Iranian capitulation was the quickest path to derailing diplomacy and laying the groundwork for war.

There are several reasons why Trump should not allow himself to be pushed into pursuing the zero-enrichment fantasy.

First, this goal has not only proven unattainable but also counterproductive, gifting Iran more time to advance its program while delaying the constraints a realistic, verification-based agreement would impose.

In 2003, Iran proposed to the U.S. a comprehensive deal aimed at resolving all major disputes, including limits on its enrichment program. At the time, Tehran had just 164 centrifuges, no stockpile of low-enriched uranium, and no capability to enrich above 3.67 percent—sufficient for civilian fuel but far below the 90 percent required for nuclear weapons.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, the Bush administration not only ignored the proposal but also punished the Swiss ambassador in Tehran for delivering Iran’s diplomatic overture to Washington. For Bush, nothing short of zero enrichment and regime change in Iran was acceptable.

In the absence of a deal, Iran’s nuclear program steadily expanded. By 2006, it was operating over 3,000 centrifuges. The Bush administration reluctantly agreed to support European-led talks but imposed a fatal precondition: Iran had to halt enrichment before negotiations could begin. Predictably, diplomacy stalled—and Iran’s program advanced unchecked.

By the time Barack Obama took office in 2009, Iran was operating 8,000 centrifuges and had stockpiled 1,500 kg of low-enriched uranium—enough for one nuclear weapon if further enriched. Obama’s early diplomatic efforts faltered, but by 2012, secret talks in Oman produced a breakthrough since, for the first time, the U.S. signaled it would accept enrichment in Iran in exchange for strict limits and intrusive inspections.

This breakthrough paved the way for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. By the time it was implemented, Iran had expanded its program to 19,000 centrifuges and amassed over 10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium.

Over the past two decades, the persistent demand for zero enrichment—an unachievable goal—has only resulted in a larger and more advanced Iranian nuclear program by postponing realistic, enforceable limits on enrichment.

While these delays were damaging in the past, they pose an even greater risk today amid the looming crisis over potential UN snapback sanctions. This is yet another reason why Trump should avoid falling into the zero-enrichment trap.

Keep reading

US wants to exploit bases in Brazil and provoke the country over its role in BRICS

The plan by American diplomats to achieve rights for the United States to use Brazilian military bases is a radical maneuver and a political provocation against Brazil, particularly given its relationship with BRICS partners, especially China.

US diplomats linked to President Donald Trump’s Republican Party have been discussing in informal meetings with Brazilian interlocutors the unrestricted use of the Fernando de Noronha Airport base in the Atlantic Ocean and the Natal Air Base in Rio Grande do Norte.

According to DefesaNet, the excuse given to defend the plan is the so-called “historical right of operational return” for investments made by the US during the Cold War. Washington’s argument is also based on the fact that military assets financed in other countries can be reactivated based on tacit agreements or the principle of hemispheric reciprocity, especially in the context of a global threat, as well as contractual elements.

Despite being broken in 1977, the Brazil-US Military Assistance Agreement continues to be cited by US policy-making think tanks, such as the RAND Corporation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and The Heritage Foundation, as a reference to the so-called “hemispheric interoperability tradition.”

Furthermore, the Technological Safeguards Agreement (AST) — signed in 2019 under the administration of former president Jair Bolsonaro, created to enable the use of the Alcântara base — is often cited as a political and diplomatic precedent for new modalities of US military access to sensitive facilities under Brazilian control.

Behind the scenes, sources from the Ministry of Defense emphasize that Washington’s plan is unconstitutional since the 1988 Constitution prohibits the use of military installations by foreign forces without prior authorization from the National Congress.

At the same time, the request for bases by US diplomats has no real or concrete objective since neither the US nor Brazil is at war, and, therefore, there is no operational need. Rather, this is a political provocation made by the Trump administration. Given the fact that Brazil has a special relationship with Russia and China, countries that form the core of BRICS, Trump intends to create external and internal embarrassment for Brazil with this unreasonable request.

There are similarities with the US demands against Greenland, Canada, and Panama.

Keep reading

US to Begin European Troop Withdrawal Talks, NATO Ambassador Says

In a move signaling a long-overdue shift in American foreign policy, the United States, under President Donald J. Trump, is preparing to open discussions with European allies on reducing its military footprint across the continent.

US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker confirmed the Trump administration’s plans during a security forum in Estonia, stating that the conversations will formally begin after June’s NATO summit in The Hague, Reuters reported.

“Nothing has been determined,” Whitaker said, “but as soon as we do, we are going to have these conversations in the structure of NATO.” He made it clear this isn’t just another round of diplomatic foot-dragging. “It’s more than 30 years of the US desire to reduce troops in Europe. President Trump just said, enough—this is going to happen, and it’s going to happen now.”

The remarks starkly contrast with previous administrations’ foreign policy, which treated NATO like a sacred cow regardless of how little European members contributed in return. Trump-era officials have increasingly called out what they see as chronic European underfunding and dependency.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth minced no words earlier this year, declaring that “stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.”

In private discussions over the allegedly encrypted messaging app Signal, Hegseth reportedly expressed his “loathing of European free-loading,” a sentiment echoed by Vice President J.D. Vance. The two have become key voices pushing to restore a foreign policy rooted in American interests, not global entanglements.

Despite the uproar in some NATO capitals, Whitaker reassured allies that the US isn’t abandoning the alliance altogether—just recalibrating its role. “We’re going to remain in this alliance,” he said. “But we’re not going to have any more patience for foot-dragging.”

The numbers behind the move are substantial. America currently maintains an estimated 128,000 troops across Europe, with Germany hosting the lion’s share. Poland, Italy, and the UK also house significant contingents.

But the political winds are shifting, and rightly so. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently tried to tamp down fears after the US quietly redeployed forces away from a major Ukrainian support hub. Still, the writing’s on the wall.

For decades, Washington has carried the bulk of the military burden in Europe, funding and defending nations that often lecture Americans while failing to meet even basic NATO spending obligations. With ballooning domestic priorities and a border crisis back home, many Americans—especially those aligned with the nationalist, Trump-aligned right—are asking why their sons and daughters are still stationed abroad to defend countries that won’t defend themselves.

Critics of the withdrawal, unsurprisingly, warn of a “security gap” that Russia could exploit.

Keep reading

How War Propaganda Has Fueled American Foreign Policy For A Century

The New York Times this week reports that the Trump administration has canceled many grants that were to fund “research” on “misinformation.” This is being presented by the media as a dastardly deed that will supposedly allow the spread of misleading or false information through various media channels.

Of course, if there were any genuine interest in studying the most egregious efforts to spread misinformation, media outlets like the Times would study themselves and their friends in the regime. After all, few organizations have been more complicit than the national American media and the US foreign policy establishment when it comes to spreading much of the worst propaganda in American history. I say “worst” because this propaganda has often been used in service to the worst ends: to gin up support for a variety of wars resulting in the deaths of thousands—sometimes even hundreds of thousands—of innocents.

Relatively recent media-regime partnerships in propagandistic misinformation include the “Russiagate” hoax, various efforts to obscure US meddling in Ukraine, and the nearly nonstop drumbeat of “news” stories over the past twenty years designed to push for regime change in various countries from Venezuela to Russia to Libya and to Syria—where the Assad regime, according to US design, was recently replaced by Islamist terrorists. And then, of course, there is the nonstop stream of misinformation designed to prop up the State of Israel and obscure its many war crimes. And let’s not forget the fictional “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq which the US presented to the United Nations as established fact.

Throughout all this, the interventionist “foreign policy blob” in Washington received near universal support from its friends at publications like the Times and the Washington Post.

The United States did not invent these tactics. Over the past 100-plus years, however, perhaps no regime was more innovative than the British when it came to inventing “facts” designed to manufacture popular consent for wars and more foreign intervention. The United States has done its best to adopt similar methods, however, and creating invented narratives in service to the regime’s foreign policy goals is now standard operating procedure for the American state as well.

Keep reading