Tag: perpetual war

Over 3 million people forcibly displaced by US-Israeli war on Iran: UN

Over 3 million Iranians have been displaced by the ongoing US-Israeli war against the Islamic Republic, the Director of the Division of Emergency and Programme Support at UNHCR, Ayaki Ito, revealed on 12 March.

“Between 600,000 and 1 million Iranian households are now temporarily displaced inside Iran as a result of the ongoing conflict, according to preliminary assessments, representing up to 3.2 million people,”  Ito wrote in the statement.

He added that most of the internally displaced are fleeing Tehran and other major urban areas, and that the number of forcibly displaced “is likely to continue rising as hostilities persist, marking a worrying escalation in humanitarian needs.”

The statement added that refugee families hosted in the country, the majority of whom are Afghan, are particularly vulnerable due to their already “precarious situation” and “limited support networks,” with many now leaving affected areas as insecurity rises and access to essential services declines.

Ito said UNHCR is adjusting its response to the growing displacement, noting that the agency is expanding its operations in Iran through reception areas, helplines, and ongoing support services while working with national authorities and humanitarian partners to assess emerging needs as population movements increase.

He stressed the need to protect civilians and maintain humanitarian access, urging that borders remain open to those seeking safety in accordance with international obligations.

At least 1,300 Iranians have been killed since the US-Israeli war began, including at least 165 children killed in a double-tap strike on a girls’ school, as attacks hit civilian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods.

Israel’s aggression across West Asia has also triggered a refugee crisis on a smaller but proportionally more intense scale.

Constant Israeli attacks across Lebanon have displaced a staggering 14 percent of the country’s population – over 800,000 people – from the south and Beirut’s southern suburbs.

Keep reading

“What Kind of F*cking Bullsh*t is This?” – Megyn Kelly GOES OFF After Catching 60 Minutes Fraudulently Splicing Pete Hegseth Interview to Push Pro-Israel Narrative 

Former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly went off this week on CBS and Bari Weiss this week, saying they “just cannot seem to help themselves making deceptive edits” after they spliced an interview with Pete Hegseth to misrepresent his comments and run cover for the foreign state of Israel. 

“They do not give a sh*t about misleading you over at CBS, the old CBS, or the new CBS, which has a brand new agenda,” Kelly said, accusing CBS of “trying to shove Israel into the debate” by completely changing the framing of a question in post-interview edits.

CBS and its parent company, Paramount, were previously forced to pay millions of dollars to President Trump and agreed to change their editorial policy in a settlement with President Trump following the infamous edited “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris in 2024.

Last year, the network and its parent company were acquired by Skydance Media, led by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Larry Ellison. Skydance is now one of the world’s largest and most powerful media conglomerates, controlling CNN, CBS, HBO, MTV, Paramount+, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Showtime, TNT, TBS, Adult Swim, and more, following the acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery after Netflix pulled out of a bidding war with Paramount Skydance. Netflix notably pulled out, allowing Skydance to proceed with the deal, after Attorney General Pam Bondi opened an antitrust inquiry into Warner’s already agreed-upon deal with Netflix.

Under Ellison and Skydance, the Free Press co-founder Bari Weiss now serves as CBS’s new editor in chief.

So, naturally, with Trump allies taking over the media landscape, you’d expect the media to be fairer and more honest, but it appears that’s not the case.

In a recent interview with Hegseth, CBS used tactics similar to those previously used with Kamala Harris. They altered the question posed to Hegseth, making it appear that he was defending Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s prosecution of the war in Iran, which Hegseth has admitted isn’t always in alignment with US objectives.

“Do you want to address that criticism?” host Major Garrett asks Hegseth after a narrator says, “Some normally enthusiastic supporters of the President have criticized him, suggesting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled the US into a war that, to their minds, did not put American interests first.”

Then, as if Hegseth was defending Netanyahu and Israel, in response to arguments that Israel pulled the US into the war, the clip then shows Hegseth telling Garrett, “All I know is, I’m in the room every day, and I see how President Trump operates and what he’s putting first, and it’s America, Americans, and American interests.”

Keep reading

FT Report: Iran War Draining Years’ Worth of US Weapons Supplies

The opening phase of the Trump administration’s military campaign against Iran is already revealing the staggering financial and logistical demands of modern warfare. In just a matter of days, the conflict has consumed vast quantities of advanced weapons and billions of dollars in military resources.

According to a new report published by the Financial Times and other outlets, American forces have already burned through stockpiles of critical munitions that would normally last for years. Officials say the pace of weapons usage is raising serious questions inside Washington about the long-term sustainability of the campaign.

During a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill, Pentagon officials told lawmakers that the first six days of the war alone cost at least $11.3 billion. The estimate primarily reflects the value of munitions used during the initial strikes.

The true cost is likely far higher. Additional expenses include the deployment of forces to the region, logistical support, medical care, and the replacement of aircraft and equipment damaged or lost in combat.

The scale of the spending has begun to alarm lawmakers from both parties. Members of Congress are increasingly demanding clarity about how long the conflict may last and what the administration ultimately hopes to achieve.

Much of the early expenditure has been tied to the use of sophisticated long-range weapons. Among the most significant examples are the Navy’s Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were used extensively in the opening phase of the campaign.

Analysts estimate that American forces fired roughly 168 Tomahawk missiles within the first 100 hours of combat operations. Each missile carries a price tag of approximately $3.6 million, meaning hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons were expended in a matter of days.

Military analysts say this level of consumption could have lasting consequences for the Navy’s inventory. One source familiar with the situation told the Financial Times that the service will likely “feel this expenditure for several years.”

The concern stems from the fact that these missiles cannot be replaced quickly. Over the past five years, the American military has purchased only a few hundred Tomahawks, far fewer than the number now being consumed in combat. For fiscal year 2026, the Pentagon had planned to acquire just 57 additional missiles. That order, costing roughly $206 million, would replace only a fraction of those already fired during the current campaign.

Keep reading

NYT Reports First ‘Confirmed’ Attack by Gulf Nation Against Iran, as Missiles Were Fired From Bahrain Against the Mullahs’ Regime

Will the Gulf states turn on Iran?

It does seem at this point that the first attack by an Arab nation against the Iranian mullahs has already happened.

The New York Times reported (behind a paywall) that they were able to verify video showing ballistic missiles launched from Bahrain toward Iran.

“A video verified by The New York Times shows ballistic missiles being launched from Bahrain in the direction of Iran, in what appears to be the first confirmed instance of an attack on the Islamic Republic originating from a Persian Gulf country since the war began.”

By hosting the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, Bahrain has been accused by Iran of enabling US military operations.

The footage was originally shared on X by a user calling himself Egypt’s Intel Observer (@EGYOSINT), and was geolocated to northern Bahrain, near the airport.

NYT’s Experts identified the launcher for at least one missile as a U.S.-made M142 HIMARS truck.

“That launcher is a U.S.-made M142 HIMARS truck, according to Wes J. Bryant, a national security analyst who served in the U.S. Air Force, and Fabian Hoffmann, a missile specialist at the University of Oslo.”

Keep reading

Washington’s 47-Year War Against Iran

The irony of the Big Lie about Iran’s alleged “47-Year War On America” is that the imperatives of Empire caused Washington to take actions in the decades after the February 1979 Iranian Revolution that amounted to the opposite – a relentless five decades long Washington instigated war on Iran.

First, as we showed in Part 1, Washington’s foolish refusal to extradite the Shah and meet the reasonable demands of the hostage-holding students facilitated the takeover of the Revolution by theocratic hardliners; and then in rapid fire succession Washington launched successive overt and covert attacks on the Khomeini-dominated government that caused it to permanently harden its stance against the US government.

The primary and defining battering ram of Washington’s post-1979 attack on the new Iranian government was its extensive aid to Saddam Hussein during his eight year war on Iran. Anyone with at least a passing knowledge of the hundreds of thousands of death and sweeping economic devastation that this war brought to the Iranian people might well understand why the ritual chant “death to America” took hold during these early days of the Islamic Republic.

As it happened, Saddam Husein launched his war in September 1980 partly out of fear that the Islamic revolution in Shiite Iran would spillover into Iraq, where 35% of the population was Shiite; and also because he opportunistically recognized that Iran’s regular military had been badly impaired owing to sweeping purges of suspected pro-Shah officers by the new regime.

Moreover, Hussein also recognized another even more important Iranian strategic disability: Namely, that the new regime had inherited a sophisticated military arsenal largely equipped with U.S.-made hardware from the Shah’s era, including F-14 Tomcat fighters, M-60 tanks, Hawk missiles, and various artillery systems, but that this formidable arsenal had been largely sidelined by lack of maintenance and spare parts.

Again, the Washington keepers of the Empire were the culprit. Determined to show that they would not be pushed around by a rag-tag band of 400 students holed-up in the US Embassy, the Carter Administration imposed a wide array of sanctions and trade embargoes on Iran. These actions included suspensions of arms export licenses, cancellation of pending arms sales and an Executive Order in the spring of 1980, which initiated a trade embargo that stopped the flow of most civilians goods as well as US military exports and spare parts to Iran.

Again, there was no reason for Washington’s hostile act of economic warfare against the incipient Islamic Republic except the imperatives of Empire. If anything, the fall of the Shah should have been a wake up call to Washington to get the hell out of the region because nothing of importance regarding America’s Homeland Security was at stake – even as the new found oil-wealth pouring into these nations and statelets had inherently become an engine of political turmoil and economic dislocation.

In any event, Washington’s embargo on weapons spare parts tilted the balance heavily against Iran when Saddam Hussein invaded the latter in September 1980. Lack of access to essential maintenance components had resulted in the grounding of much of Iran’s air force and rendered most of its ground-based armored units inoperable. By 1982, up to 70-80% of Iran’s U.S.-sourced equipment was non-functional due to lack of parts, forcing the military to cannibalize operational vehicles and aircraft for spares and repairs.

The US embargo not only isolated Iran from its primary supplier but also pressured allies and third-party nations to withhold support, thereby exacerbating the degradation of its conventional capabilities.The Reagan administration intensified these Carter restrictions in 1983 with Operation Staunch, a global diplomatic campaign aimed at blocking arms sales and spare parts to Iran, particularly for its legacy US planes, tanks and other weaponry.

Keep reading

The War on Iran Fails Every Test of Justice

For nearly two millennia, the Christian intellectual tradition has maintained that war, while sometimes permissible, is never presumptively just. The burden of proof always falls on the party making war, not on the party resisting it. Augustine of Hippo laid the groundwork in the fifth century. Thomas Aquinas refined it in the thirteenth. Their framework has endured because it is rigorous, demanding, and difficult to satisfy. It was designed to be difficult to satisfy. War kills people, and the Christian faith holds that every human person bears the image of God.

The war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran on February 28, 2026 fails every criterion of the just war tradition. Not most of them. All of them.

Legitimate Authority

Aquinas held that war must be waged by a sovereign authority with the responsibility and competence to make such a decision. In the American constitutional order, that authority rests with Congress. Article I, Section 8 is unambiguous: Congress shall have the power to declare war. Not the president. Not the secretary of defense. Not a foreign head of state calling from Jerusalem.

On March 5, the House of Representatives voted on a War Powers Resolution to halt Trump’s unauthorized war. It failed 212–219, but the very fact that it was brought to a vote – after the bombing had already begun – tells you everything about the constitutional posture of this conflict. The war was started without congressional authorization. Only two Republicans, Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson, voted to reassert the legislature’s war powers. The executive branch launched a regime-change war against a nation of ninety million people on its own initiative, and Congress, rather than checking that power, acquiesced after the fact.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has admitted that the United States launched the war in part because Israel was planning to attack Iran unilaterally, and Washington decided to join rather than restrain. This is not sovereign deliberation. This is a tail wagging a dog into a catastrophe. The criterion of legitimate authority is not met.

Just Cause

The classical just war tradition permits war only to correct a grave, public evil – typically an act of aggression against the party going to war or against innocents it has a duty to protect. What was the grave evil that Iran inflicted on the United States?

President Trump, in his State of the Union address on February 24, accused Iran of reviving efforts to build nuclear weapons and possessing advanced missile capabilities threatening the United States and Europe. But the administration’s own intelligence community had reached the opposite conclusion. A classified National Intelligence Council report, completed roughly one week before the attack, found that even a large-scale assault was unlikely to oust the Iranian government. More critically, the intelligence community has never established that Iran was building a nuclear weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s own director acknowledged on air that the Agency had no proof of a systematic Iranian effort to build a bomb.

We have seen this before. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq on the basis of claims about weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be fabricated. As multiple observers have noted, the rhetorical pattern is virtually identical: unproven allegations of WMDs, claims of imminent threat, and a rush to war that preempts the diplomatic process. The Iranian foreign minister was saying a historic deal was within reach when the bombs fell. The Omani foreign minister, mediating the talks, confirmed that Tehran had agreed to significant concessions. The United States bombed anyway.

There is no just cause here. There is a manufactured one.

Keep reading

Senate Republicans On Iran War Ending: Sooner The Better

The ongoing U.S. military operation against Iran, which began February 28th with strikes aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile capabilities, navy, and other strategic assets, has prompted a range of reactions from Republican senators. While most GOP lawmakers initially supported President Trump’s actions – evidenced by the Senate’s largely party-line vote on March 4th to block a bipartisan war powers resolution that would have curtailed or required congressional approval for the conflict – several prominent voices have emphasized the need for a swift conclusion rather than a prolonged engagement.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), a key Trump ally, became one of the most vocal advocates for an early exit during his appearance on Jesse Watters Primetime on Tuesday. Hawley urged the president to “declare victory” and withdraw U.S. forces, arguing that core objectives have already been met.

Watters: Do you think the President is going to look for an off-ramp or keep going?

Hawley: I think he [Trump] has achieved his objectives the way that he’s laid them out… What is there, really, that’s left to do that we haven’t already done?

…

We have totally destroyed, forever, their nuclear program. We have destroyed their ballistic missiles. We have destroyed their navy. This has been a total success… I think we ought to say to our heroes, ‘Thank you for a job well done.’ This has been absolutely amazing. It’s been amazing. It’s been historic. And now it’s time to declare victory.

Keep reading

UN Security Council Passes Iran War Resolution, Yet With No Mention Of US Or Israel

Many independent pundits have long complained of the emptiness of the United Nations as some kind of ‘moral authority’ – given it often claims to be just this. The vacuous nature of UN statements connected to war is on display once again as the Security Council (UNSC) issued a formal condemnation of the Iran war on Wednesday, but without mentioning either the United States or Israel at all.

For this reason, Iran quickly slammed the vote, also as Russia and China abstained. The passed resolution demands an end to Iranian attacks across the Gulf, and notably made zero reference to US or Israeli strikes on Iran.

It was tabled Bahrain and backed by 135 countries, and calls for “the immediate cessation of all attacks by the Islamic Republic of Iran against Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan.”

It further condemns actions or threats by Iran “aimed at closing, obstructing, or otherwise interfering with international navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.”

The measure passed 13-0, and a second draft resolution was proposed by Moscow, which called on all sides to cease hostilities, however it failed to pass.

US Ambassador to the UN Mike Walz stated: “Iran’s strategy of sowing chaos, of trying to hold their neighbours hostage, trying to shake the resolve of the region, has clearly backfired, as shown by this vote today.”

China’s UN envoy Fu Cong said the text “does not fully reflect the root cause and overall picture of the conflict in a balanced manner.”

The US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28, without warning, and while Iran was engaged in several rounds of nuclear talks with Trump envoys. 

Like the June war, the assault appears to have caught Tehran completely by surprise, and Iranians have condemned the unprovoked nature of the assault. 

Keep reading

Does the 47-Year War with Iran Make Allowance for 2001 and 2002?

I’ve been reading many people on many sites claiming that we have been at war with Iran for 47 years. I found that odd because I thought I distinctly remembered good relations between the Iran and U.S. governments after 9/11. So I asked ChatGPT, “What did the Iranian government do in 2001 to help the U.S. government after the 9/11 attacks?”

I got a long answer that fit what I had vaguely remembered. Here it is:

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Iranian government actually provided several forms of practical assistance to the United States and the emerging Afghan government in the campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. This cooperation was limited and short-lived, but it was real and fairly significant in late 2001.

1. Intelligence sharing and operational cooperation

Iran quietly cooperated with the United States during the early phase of the war in Afghanistan.

  • Iranian officials met with U.S. diplomats in Geneva in late 2001 to coordinate efforts against the Taliban.
  • Iran helped identify Taliban targets and provided intelligence that assisted U.S. bombing campaigns.
  • Iranian Revolutionary Guard elements working with anti-Taliban forces helped organize operations against Taliban positions.

Iran had strong reasons for this: the Taliban were a bitter enemy of Iran, especially after Taliban forces killed Iranian diplomats in Afghanistan in 1998.

2. Support for the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance

Before and after 9/11, Iran backed the Northern Alliance, the main Afghan force fighting the Taliban.

  • Iran supplied the alliance with money, weapons, and training.
  • When the U.S. began military operations in October 2001, the Northern Alliance served as the main ground force against the Taliban.
  • Iranian networks helped facilitate cooperation between Northern Alliance commanders and U.S. forces.

This assistance indirectly strengthened the U.S.-led campaign because Northern Alliance offensives, combined with U.S. airpower, rapidly toppled the Taliban government.

3. Direct assistance in the fall of Herat

Iranian special-operations forces (the Quds Force) reportedly worked with anti-Taliban fighters in western Afghanistan.

  • They helped organize an uprising in the city of Herat in November 2001, which helped drive out Taliban forces before U.S. troops arrived.

4. Diplomatic help creating the new Afghan government

Iran also played a constructive role in the Bonn Conference (December 2001), which created the interim Afghan government after the Taliban collapsed.

  • Iranian diplomats pressured Afghan factions they influenced to accept compromises.
  • They helped secure support for Hamid Karzai as the head of the new Afghan interim government.

Several U.S. officials later said Iran’s role was instrumental in reaching the final agreement.

5. Safety assurances and humanitarian cooperation

Through back channels (mainly via Switzerland):

  • Iran signaled it would help U.S. personnel who accidentally crossed into Iranian territory during operations near the Afghan border.
  • It also cooperated on refugee and humanitarian issues involving Afghanistan.

Keep reading

Pro-War Republican Senator Apologizes For Iran Girls’ School Massacre After Trump Blames Tehran

A Republican senator apologized this week for what US military investigators have reportedly determined was an American missile strike on a girls’ school in southern Iran that killed around 175 people—mostly children—amid continued sidestepping by President Donald Trump, who has blamed Tehran for the massacre.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)—who supports the US-Israeli war on Iran—first apologized for the attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab during a Monday interview with NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapur. “It was terrible,” Kennedy said. “We made a mistake… I’m just so sorry it happened.”

Kennedy repeated his apology Tuesday on CNN, telling political correspondent Kasie Hunt: “The investigation may prove me wrong. I hope so. The kids are still dead, but I think it was a horrible, horrible mistake. I wish it hadn’t happened. I’m sorry it happened.”

Reuters first reported last week that US military investigators believe American forces carried out the school strike, a preliminary conclusion that came on the heels of a New York Times analysis that found the US was “most likely to have carried out the strike” due to its near-simultaneous bombing of a nearby Iranian naval base.

This week, Iranian officials displayed fragments from what is believed to be the Tomahawk missile used in the school bombing. The remnants were marked with the names of two US arms companies, a Pentagon contract number, and the words “Made in USA”.

On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the ongoing military probe has determined that the US launched the Tomahawk strike, which paramedics and victims’ relatives said was a so-called “double-tap,” in which the attacker bombs a target and then follows up with a second strike meant to kill survivors and first responders. Investigators attribute the strike to a “targeting error,” according to the Times.

This, as Trump—who warned as his illegal war started that “bombs will be dropping everywhere”—continued sidestepping blame for the attack. On Saturday, Trump said aboard Air Force One that “based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran.“

Two days later, the president falsely claimed that Iran has “some” Tomahawk missiles and may have used one of them to bomb the school. Iran has no Tomahawks—which are highly restricted and sold only to a handful of close allies—and the US does not sell weapons to the Iranian government, with the notable exception of the Iran-Contra Affair, when the Reagan administration secretly sold arms to Tehran in order to fund anti-communist Contra terrorists in Nicaragua.

Other senior Trump administration officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and US Ambassador to the United Nations Michael Waltz have declined to back the president’s claims and have instead deferred to the ongoing military investigation. Kennedy told NBC News and CNN that the school bombing was unintentional.

“Other countries do that sort of thing intentionally, like Russia,” he told Kapur. “We would never do that intentionally.”

Keep reading