Tag: perpetual war

Patriot missile involved in Bahrain blast likely US-operated, analysis finds

An American-operated Patriot air defense battery likely fired the interceptor missile involved in a pre-dawn explosion that injured dozens of civilians and tore through homes in U.S.-ally Bahrain 10 days into the war on Iran, according to an analysis by academic researchers examined by Reuters.

Both Bahrain and Washington have blamed an Iranian drone attack for the March 9 blast, which the Gulf kingdom said injured 32 people including children, some seriously. Commenting on the day of the attack, U.S. Central Command said on X that an Iranian drone struck a residential neighbourhood in Bahrain.

In response to questions from Reuters, Bahrain on Saturday acknowledged for the first time that a Patriot missile was involved in the explosion over the Mahazza neighborhood on Sitra island, offshore from the capital Manama and also home to an oil refinery.

In the statement, a Bahraini government spokesperson said the missile successfully intercepted an Iranian drone mid-air, saving lives.

“The damage and injuries sustained were not a result of a direct impact to the ground of either the Patriot interceptor or the Iranian drone,” the spokesperson said.

Neither Bahrain or Washington has provided evidence that an Iranian drone was involved in the Mahazza incident.

The use of costly, advanced weaponry to defend against attacks by far cheaper drones has been a defining feature of the war. The incident points to the risks and limitations of this strategy: The blast from the powerful Patriot, whether or not it intercepted a drone, contributed to widespread damage and casualties, while Bahrain’s air defenses were unable to prevent strikes that night on the nearby oil refinery, which declared force majeure hours later.

When asked for comment, the Pentagon referred Reuters to Central Command, which did not immediately reply to questions.

In response to questions sent to the White House, a senior U.S. official said the United States was “crushing” Iran’s ability to shoot or produce drones and missiles. “We will continue to address these threats to our country and our allies,” the official said, adding that the U.S. military “never targets civilians.” The official did not answer specific questions about the Patriot attack.

On February 28, the first day of U.S. strikes on Iran, an Iranian girls school took a direct hit. Investigators at the U.S. Defense Department believe U.S. forces were likely responsible, Reuters first reported, possibly because of outdated targeting data, two U.S. sources previously told the news agency.

Video of the aftermath of the Mahazza blast in Bahrain verified by Reuters shows rubble around houses, a thick layer of dust in the streets, an injured man and screaming residents.

Keep reading

Western silence allows Israel to get away with killing journalists

On March 19, RT war correspondent Steve Sweeney and his cameraman Ali Rida Sbeity were injured by an Israeli strike meters from where they stood in southern Lebanon.

Sweeney was on camera reporting on recent Israeli attacks on southern Lebanese towns and infrastructure when he heard the sound of an incoming projectile. Ducking and running, he managed to escape the brunt of the impact.

According to the journalists, an Israeli aircraft fired a missile at their filming position near Al-Qasmiya Bridge, where Sweeney was reporting on, “the targeting of bridges and the forced displacement of one million people, an ethnic cleansing operation on a larger scale than the Nakba,” as he later stated, referencing the violent displacement of Palestinians which accompanied the creation of the Jewish State in the late 1940s.

The men were treated for shrapnel injuries. Sweeney said, adding “I’m amazed that we survived. We were incredibly lucky to come away with the injuries we did.”

Just a day prior, Sweeney had posted on X about the Israeli targeted airstrike on Lebanese journalist and Al-Manar TV presenter Mohammad Sherri and his wife. Both were killed. Sweeney reposted the news with the words, “Targeting journalists is a war crime.”

The next day, he himself was targeted.

This deliberate targeting of journalists wearing press vests is another Israeli war crime, in a long list of Israeli war crimes which include killing at least 261 Palestinian journalists in Gaza in the past two years alone, as well as previously killing Lebanese journalists and bombing Iranian media repeatedly.

Keep reading

The State Will Always Socialize The Cost Of War

War is often sold to the public as an act of national will: decisive, necessary, and under control. The bill arrives later, in a quieter form. It shows up in insurance markets, shipping rates, emergency guarantees, higher fuel prices, and sudden policy reversals designed to keep the economic damage from spreading too far or too fast. That is what is now happening with the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. The fighting is not only destroying lives and widening instability. It is also revealing something more familiar about the American state: when private actors no longer want to bear the risk of a war Washington helped ignite, Washington moves to spread that risk across everyone else.

The clearest example came when maritime war-risk premiums in the Gulf surged, in some cases by more than 1000%, as ships and cargoes moved through a combat zone centered on one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints. This is what markets do when governments create danger: they start pricing reality honestly. Insurance underwriters do not care about speeches about resolve or credibility. They care about missiles, mines, damaged hulls, and the odds that a vessel will not make it home intact. Once those odds change, the market does what it is supposed to do. It becomes expensive to move goods through a war.

But the American state does not like that kind of honesty, because honest prices expose the real cost of intervention. So instead of letting war become unaffordable to the people escalating it, Washington stepped in. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation announced a maritime reinsurance facility covering losses up to roughly $20 billion on a rolling basis, and later named Chubb as the lead insurance partner. In plain English, the government decided that if the private market was no longer willing to carry the full risk of this war, the state would help carry it instead. That is not a side effect of interventionism. It is one of its operating principles. Risk is privatized on the way up, then socialized when the numbers stop working.

The same pattern is visible in energy policy. As the war tightened shipping and pushed oil prices above $100 a barrel, Washington issued a thirty-day waiver allowing purchases of stranded Russian oil at sea to stabilize markets. That move was not just an emergency adjustment. It was an admission. The administration was effectively saying that one war had already become costly enough to require loosening pressure in another theater. A foreign policy that presents itself as hard and disciplined suddenly becomes very flexible when gasoline, shipping, and inflation begin threatening domestic politics. The slogans remain moralistic. The mechanics turn transactional overnight.

This is what statism looks like in practice. It does not simply bomb another country and call it security. It also rearranges the economic landscape at home and abroad so that the political architects of the war do not face the full consequences of their decisions. The cost is pushed outward onto taxpayers who did not authorize the war, consumers who will pay more for energy and goods, and trading systems that now have to absorb new shocks because Washington and Israel chose escalation over restraint. The state does not merely fight. It conscripts logistics, insurance, credit, and public balance sheets into the campaign.

Keep reading

War Becomes Spectacle in Trump’s Horrific Propaganda Promoting War in Iran

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to be an antiwar candidate, boasting that, unlike his predecessors, he would end endless wars and keep the United States out of new military conflicts. Yet the trajectory of his presidency has unfolded in the opposite direction. From expanding military confrontations in the Caribbean to the escalating war with Iran, launched through large-scale strikes that risk igniting a wider regional catastrophe, Trump’s rule has increasingly relied on the language and machinery of war. As Zachary Basu points out in Axios, “he has attacked seven nations [and] authorized more individual air strikes in 2025 than President Biden did in four years.”

What makes this moment particularly disturbing is not only the violence itself, but also the way it is staged and celebrated. As the conflict with Iran intensified, the White House circulated promotional videos that fused real footage of bombing raids with visuals drawn from video games and action films, transforming acts of destruction into a spectacle of national triumph. In such images, war appears not as tragedy or political catastrophe but as thrilling display, inviting viewers to admire the technological performance of power while remaining detached from the human suffering it produces. These spectacles are more than crude propaganda. They reveal a deeper shift in political culture in which violence is aestheticized, cruelty normalized, and militarism staged as entertainment, training the public to experience domination not as a catastrophe but as an exhilarating display of power.

We live in an age of monsters. More than two centuries ago, Francisco Goya captured such a moment in his haunting 1799 etching, “The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters,” an image that now reads less like a relic of the Enlightenment than a prophecy of our own time. The Italian political thinker Antonio Gramsci described moments like this as periods of historical crisis, writing that “the crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” Our present moment bears all the marks of such an interregnum.

Keep reading

Trump is strategizing means to seize Iran’s nuclear stockpiles, sources say

The Trump administration has been strategizing methods and options to secure or extract Iran’s nuclear materials, according to multiple people briefed on the discussions, as a U.S.-Israel-led military campaign against Tehran enters a more uncertain phase. 

The timing of any such an operation — if President Trump were to order it — remained unclear Friday night. One source said he has made no decision yet. 

But planning has centered on the possible deployment of forces from the secretive Joint Special Operations Command, the elite military unit often tasked with the most sensitive counter-proliferation missions, two of the sources told CBS News. 

A White House spokeswoman said it’s the Pentagon’s job to make preparations.

A spokesperson for the Pentagon didn’t immediately comment. 

Mr. Trump in a Truth Social post Friday evening said: “We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran.”

The private deliberations on the nuclear material come amid an evolving conflict that in its opening focused on degrading Iran’s conventional military capabilities — including air defenses, missile systems and key infrastructure tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. 

That initial wave of strikes carried out by U.S. and Israeli forces was intended to blunt Iran’s ability to retaliate across the region. However, despite the onslaught from the air, Iran has been able to counterstrike on Israel and U.S.-allied countries in the Gulf region, and has halted most oil shipments by threatening ships. 

Keep reading

It’s Not Anarcho-Tyranny, It’s Interventionist Non-Intervention

In 1994, Sam Francis originally coined a term: “anarcho-tyranny.” He described this phenomenon as “the combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and, simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection or public safety.”

In a previous article (and in an forthcoming paper), utilizing Rothbard’s typology of intervention, it was argued that the state—following coercive taxation and monopolization or competition suppression—can intervene through doing “nothing,” that is, paid non-delivery of promised and monopolized service. The core elements of interventionist non-intervention include 1) the binary intervention of coercive taxation where citizens are forced to pay for a service regardless of whether or not they receive it; 2) the triangular interventions of monopolization or competition suppression where the state claims exclusive domain over the service provision; and, 3) non-delivery wherein the state then fails or refuses to provide the monopolized service for which it has extracted payment. These three are the minimum requirements for interventionist non-intervention. Additionally, intensifying elements may be added, which include prohibition of self-help alternatives, the maintenance of the coercive framework, and legal immunity from consequences of non-delivery.

Interventionist non-interventionism combines these elements to create something qualitatively different from other forms of government failure or intervention. This is not deregulation, in which all regulatory and coercive elements are removed; it is not privatization, since the state maintains its monopoly; it is not austerity, since the revenue extraction continues; and it is not anarchy, since the state actively prevents voluntary order. In this way, non-delivery—the state doing “nothing”—also becomes a coercive intervention. The specific combination of extraction, monopolization, and non-delivery creates systematic harm while preventing solutions.

While there is overlap with the concept of “anarcho-tyranny,” there is an important distinction between anarcho-tyranny and interventionist non-intervention. The concept of anarcho-tyranny implies in the first part of the term—anarchy—a total absence of government involvement, however, that is often not the case. It is not that there is pure anarchy—absence of government—allowed in selective cases and tyranny in other cases, but rather that the “anarchy” (disorder) described by anarcho-tyranny is state-imposed disorder. This chaos and disorder (termed “anarcy”) happens within, and largely because of, the state system, not independent of it.

Keep reading

Pete Hegseth’s War on Journalists (and Iran Too)

Last fall, nearly the entire Pentagon press corps was banned from the Pentagon after refusing to sign Pete Hegseth’s loyalty oath, which would have bound them to only report information “authorized” by the government (FAIR.org, 9/23/25). They were quickly replaced by pundits from Hegseth-approved outlets like One America News, Gateway Pundit and Lindell TV, which is “Pillow Guy” Mike Lindell’s pet project.

But once the Iran War got underway, it dawned on Hegseth that a Defense secretary needs to communicate with the whole country, not just the narrow slice of it reached by his favorite right-wing pundits. So Hegseth reversed course, asking the major networks to bring their cameras back to the Pentagon. They agreed, but on one condition: Some of their reporters had to be allowed to return to the press briefing room, too.

So back they came, albeit now at the back of the room. Few of these reporters—who represent outlets you’ve actually heard of, like ABC, NBC and the New York Times—are called on. Hegseth, a former Fox News weekend host, instead fields questions almost exclusively from handpicked media personalities seated in the front rows. (I’d call them reporters, but if they signed Hegseth’s 2025 oath, as most did, they’re anything but.)

Keep reading

IDF Iron Dome Operator Arrested, Charged With Spying For Iran

There’s quite obviously been Israeli intelligence inroads into Iran, which at times US and Israeli officials themselves have boasted about, with Tehran recently announcing efforts to round up and arrest “traitors” – and there’s even in some cases been executions of the accused.

Inside Israel, there are also fears of locals spying for Israel – but the phenomenon remains much less common (as far as anyone knows). That’s why the latest headlines are likely a shock to the Israeli establishment. On Friday an Israeli reservist tied to the country’s missile defense network has been charged with serious security offenses after allegedly working with Iranian intelligence.

Police have identified Raz Cohen, a 26-year-old from Jerusalem, who served in the Iron Dome unit, as the alleged culprit. It’s been revealed he was arrested March 1, merely one day after the joint US-Israel war on Iran kicked off. “These included passing sensitive security information to the Iranian agent during December 2025, including details about how Iron Dome works, locations of Israeli Air Force bases, and the locations of Iron Dome batteries,” writes Times of Israel.

Keep reading

Americans can thank Netanyahu, his lackeys in Congress for $1T ‘Israel First tax,’ Iranian FM says

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s top diplomat, posted a screengrab of a Washington Post article titled, “Pentagon Seeks More Than $200 Billion in Budget Request for Iran War,” and wrote that “ordinary Americans” can thank Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his lackeys in Congress for the new tax bill — that will end up being much, much higher.

“We’re only three weeks into this war of choice, imposed on both Iranians and Americans. This $200b is the tip of the iceberg. Ordinary Americans can thank Benjamin Netanyahu and his lackeys in Congress for the trillion-dollar “Israel First tax” that’s about to hit the U.S. economy,” he posted.

The Iran War continued to escalate before Araghchi’s post, and President Donald Trump appears to be so rattled that he is posting incoherent messages on Truth Social, including one that blamed Israel for bombing Iran’s vital South Pars gas reserve “out of anger for what has taken place in the Middle East.”

Keep reading

Switzerland Temporarily Suspends Arms Exports to the United States Due to Its Neutrality in the War Against Iran

The Swiss Government announced that it will not grant new licenses to export war materiel to the United States while the armed conflict with Iran continues.

This is based on the Swiss federal law on war materiel, which strictly prohibits exports to countries involved in active international armed conflicts.

According to the official statement, “the export of war materiel to countries involved in the international armed conflict with Iran cannot be authorised for the duration of the conflict.”

The United States, which in 2025 was the second-largest buyer of Swiss armaments, now faces blocked new authorizations, although existing ones are not immediately revoked.

Keep reading