Tag: perpetual war

US strikes Iran again, as Trump threatens the country “will no longer exist”

US warplanes bombed Iranian coastal radar and air defense sites on Friday and again on Saturday, striking 10 targets near the Strait of Hormuz in the second wave.

The US attacks are the latest in a series of military escalations since the announcement of a “ceasefire” on June 17, when US President Donald Trump signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Iran at Versailles.

After ordering Saturday’s strikes, Trump threatened to annihilate the country. The United States, he wrote, “will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

As he has done repeatedly, Trump is using genocidal language, threatening to annihilate a country and exterminate large portions of its population. As with his earlier outbursts, the vow to make Iran “no longer exist” carries an implicit threat to use nuclear weapons.

The attacks and threats come amid a deepening political crisis within the American ruling class over the ceasefire Trump announced on June 17. In the 11 days since, the deal has come under sustained attack from dominant sections of both the Republican and Democratic parties, which have denounced it as a surrender to Tehran.

Republican Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said it “negotiates away the victories” of the war. The Democrats condemned the agreement as having failed to secure the interests of US imperialism. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that under the deal,“Iran is stronger and America is less safe.”

Keep reading

The Chancellor, the Asset Manager, and the Missiles

There is a particular kind of arrangement that no law forbids and no scandal quite captures, because nothing in it is hidden. It sits in plain view, in regulatory filings and procurement requests, and it works precisely because everyone involved can say, truthfully, that they broke no rule. Friedrich Merz’s Germany is building one of these in real time.

Start with the weapons. In July 2025, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told Washington that Germany wanted to buy the American Typhon launch system and Tomahawk cruise missiles — the system’s first foreign sale, the decision left entirely to the United States. Trade outlets, citing Politico, put the order at three launchers and some 400 Tomahawk Block Vb missiles, north of €1 billion. Nearly a year later, Washington has not answered. The request stalled after Merz criticized the American war on Iran and Trump pulled 5,000 troops out of Germany and canceled a planned long-range-fires deployment. Europe’s would-be military leader, it turns out, cannot get deep-strike capability without American factories and a president’s goodwill. So much for sovereignty.

Now follow the money, because that is where the story actually lives. The Tomahawk is built by RTX, formerly Raytheon, where BlackRock sits among the largest institutional holders. The Typhon launcher is Lockheed Martin’s, where BlackRock has disclosed beneficial ownership above 5 percent in a Schedule 13G filed with the SEC. And BlackRock is where Merz spent four years before climbing back into politics: from 2016 to 2020 he chaired the supervisory board of its German arm. The man asking Washington to sell Germany missiles was, until lately, the public face of a firm that profits when the missiles are sold.

His time there was not quiet. In November 2018, while Merz chaired its supervisory board, prosecutors raided the Munich offices of BlackRock Asset Management Deutschland over cum-ex trades — the dividend-stripping fraud that drained the German treasury of tens of billions of euros. The conduct under investigation predated his arrival, prosecutors named him no suspect, and he called the practice “completely immoral” and ordered the firm to cooperate. Note the pattern all the same: this is a man who has spent his career adjacent to the machinery, never holding the smoking gun, always in the room.

Then came the policy. The fiscal lock came off before Merz was even sworn in. As leader of the election-winning CDU and chancellor-in-waiting, he drove through the outgoing Bundestag — on March 18, 2025, weeks before he took office, and deliberately before the newly elected parliament could convene — the amendment exempting defense spending above 1 percent of GDP from the constitutional “debt brake.” The borrowing limit Germans had treated as sacred since 2009 was gone, replaced by an open tap. German military spending rose 24 percent in 2025 to $114 billion, the largest in NATO Europe. Merz has pledged more than €750 billion for the armed forces.

And BlackRock holds the contractors cashing in. It disclosed a 6.91 percent stake in Rheinmetall, the tank-maker whose shares have soared since 2022, with the ownership chain running through the very German subsidiary Merz once chaired. It crossed the 5 percent threshold in the sensor firm Hensoldt. These are not idle positions. They are the firm collecting on a rearmament its former chairman set loose.

Merz, naturally, denies the whole framing. “I never accepted a lobbying mandate,” he told Die Zeit. The transparency group LobbyControl notes that BlackRock’s own description of his job included cultivating contacts with governments and regulators — which is what lobbying is, whatever euphemism rides on the business card.

Keep reading

The Islamabad Memorandum and the Decline of the Paradigm of Absolute Victory

Almost every war produces the same immediate question: who won? Yet the more consequential question is whether either side can convert battlefield pressure into a political order it can sustain. The Islamabad Memorandum, signed by the United States and Iran on June 17, brings that distinction into sharp relief. It is a 60-day framework linking an end to military operations and navigation through the Strait of Hormuz to negotiations over sanctions, Iran’s nuclear program, and a broader political settlement. Its importance lies less in the document’s promises than in the reality that produced it: neither Washington nor Tehran could credibly claim that continuing the war would deliver the political outcome each sought.

This does not mean military power has ceased to matter. In conflicts where both sides can impose serious costs and frustrate the other’s objectives, the ability to damage an adversary is not the same as the ability to compel it. The Islamabad Memorandum is evidence of power’s limits when it cannot be translated into a durable political order.

The framework reflects those limits. It envisages commercial navigation through Hormuz, an end to the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports, temporary sanctions relief, and talks on Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile under international supervision. Each element acknowledges that neither side achieved its preferred end state through force. The United States did not secure a stable regional order by military pressure alone; Iran did not compel Washington to abandon every demand merely by raising the costs of escalation. Security, nuclear questions, economic restrictions, and maritime access must instead be negotiated together.

For Washington, this is the central strategic lesson. The United States has never lacked the capacity to strike Iranian targets or impose material costs. The question was whether that superiority could produce a political arrangement that reduced risk without drawing America into an open-ended regional war. Iraq and Afghanistan offered a familiar warning: tactical success can destroy infrastructure and degrade capabilities, but it cannot settle rival security claims or force an adversary to accept a political future it regards as intolerable. In the Iranian case, additional strikes could have increased pressure, but they also risked higher energy costs, disruption to shipping, wider instability, and a conflict with no clear endpoint.

Diplomacy, then, should not be described simply as American retreat. It is an admission that an objective becomes less attainable as the cost of pursuing it rises. A strategy that can keep escalating but cannot define a credible political end state is not a strategy of victory. The memorandum gave Washington a way to pursue verification and regional stability without assuming that force could resolve every issue on American terms.

Iran reached a parallel conclusion from a different position. Tehran demonstrated that it could not be excluded cheaply from the regional security equation. Its capacity to impose costs on shipping, energy markets, and U.S. interests made a purely coercive settlement difficult. But resilience is not identical to the ability to impose one’s full political will. Iran could raise the price of war; it could not assume that prolonged confrontation would automatically produce sanctions relief, economic recovery, or a stable security environment. Negotiation therefore offered Tehran not capitulation, but a route to protect core interests while reducing pressures that military endurance alone could not remove.

This convergence of limitations gives the Islamabad Memorandum its historical significance. The document does not resolve decades of disputes, and it would be premature to treat it as the beginning of a settled regional order. Its provisions remain vulnerable to disagreement over sequencing, verification, sanctions implementation, and the future of nuclear talks. The recent suspension of Iranian participation in technical discussions and the subsequent agreement to halt mutual strikes show how fragile the arrangement remains. A fragile agreement is not yet a strategic transformation.

Keep reading

Creepy, Armed Robot Dogs Cleared For Evaluation By U.S. Military

K-9s have provided invaluable service over the years. They will continue to serve for a long time. But in the higher risk environments, robotic K-9s are rapidly approaching service.

For years, you’ve probably seen the interesting and cute Boston Dynamics Robo Dog in person or YouTube videos.

Get ready for kinetic steel, thunder, and bark on four robotic legs.

These new military grade dogs will be very useful in urban and field settings while biological K-9s are reserved for less hostile situations.

The real K-9s will be around for years, it will be interesting, or scary, if the robo dogs can be networked and led by real K-9s.

Keep reading

The NDAA Proposed Merger of the US and Israeli Military Is Strategically Unwise and Inherently Unconstitutional

Prior to the American Revolution being fought on battlefields, it was fought as an argument about sovereignty.

Who decides the fate of a nation? Who commands its armies? Who determines when its citizens go to war and when they remain at peace?

The Founders answered those questions with remarkable clarity. In a republic, sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised through constitutional institutions accountable to them. Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2027 threatens to undermine the foundational principles of our republic and our constitutional democracy.

Advocates for Section 219 describe it as a strategic partnership, a modernization of military cooperation between the United States and Israel. Yet the language of the provision reaches far beyond cooperation. It calls for the integration of military planning, intelligence sharing, technological development, procurement systems, research capabilities, and strategic operations in ways that blur the distinction between two sovereign nations.

This is not merely a policy question, it is a constitutional one.

America has alliances with many nations. We cooperate with allies. We conduct joint exercises. We share intelligence. However, there is a profound difference between cooperation and integration.

Cooperation preserves independent decision making.

Integration creates pressure toward shared decision making and shared consequences.

The Constitution was deliberately designed to prevent precisely this type of entanglement.

The President serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. Congress possesses the authority to declare war. Together these provisions were meant to ensure that decisions involving American lives, American treasure, and American military power remain accountable to the American people.

Section 219 moves the nation in the opposite direction. It creates permanent structures through which military, intelligence, technological, and strategic functions become increasingly intertwined with those of another government. Even if no formal transfer of command occurs, the practical effect is to make American decision making dependent upon relationships and commitments that exist far beyond the reach of American voters.

Keep reading

Is Taiwan’s President Playing With Political Fire?

Taiwan President Lai Ching-te (William Lai) appears to be missing signs from multiple sources that he lacks both international and domestic support for pursuing a more assertive policy regarding the island’s de facto independence.  Taipei heavily depends on two protectors, Japan and the United States, for firm political support against Beijing’s periodic bullying tactics.  In the event of a military crisis, Taiwan would be even more reliant on those two powers for armed defense.

However, Tokyo and Washington seem to be moving in opposite directions with respect to their longstanding, albeit informal, security commitment to Taipei.  With the Liberal Democratic Party’s landslide election victory in February 2026, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi received a popular mandate for a more hardline policy toward the People’s Republic of China (PRC) regarding Taiwan and other issues.  The election outcome reinforced her already strong personal preference.

The trend in the United States appears to be quite different.  Throughout his first term, President Donald Trump was one of Taiwan’s strongest backers, both diplomatically and militarily.  Indeed, by the end of his term, U.S. security ties with Taiwan were the strongest they had been since Washington switched formal diplomatic relations from Taipei to Beijing in 1979.

But Trump has embraced a noticeably more cautious stance on the Taiwan issue since the start of his second term.  The administration’s discontent with Taipei’s trade and investment policies were especially evident.  Even as president-elect, Trump had accused the Taiwanese government of illegally discriminating against American firms, especially in the arena of advanced computer chips and other cutting-edge electronics.  He also continued to hector Taipei to assume a greater share of the financial burden of Taiwan’s own defense instead of continuing to free ride on U.S. military exertions.  The incoming president appeared to be more than a little annoyed at Washington’s longstanding client.

Indeed, Trump seems to regard stable and cooperative bilateral relations with the PRC as a significantly higher priority than Washington’s relations with Taipei.  That became quite evident during and immediately after the May 2026 summit between Trump and PRC President Xi Jinping.  Xi cautioned his counterpart not to let the United States become too supportive of Taiwan and allow Lai’s government to pursue reckless initiatives.  The adverse consequences of such excessive tolerance, the PRC leader emphasized, could be most unfortunate.  Noticeably, Trump did not push back with defiant rhetoric stressing Washington’s longstanding firm support for Taipei.  Instead, shortly after the summit, he explicitly warned Lai not to push the envelope regarding formal independence.

Hawkish analysts in the United States, led by former national security adviser John Bolton and the editors of the Wall Street Journal, openly accused Trump of insufficient support for Taiwan.  They pressured the administration to accelerate U.S. arms sales to Taipei and increase the quantity and quality of the weapons in future aid packages.

Not only does Lai’s government need to be uneasy about firmness of the Trump administration’s security commitment to Taiwan, but also domestic support for a more conciliatory policy toward Beijing appears to be rising.  The Kuomintang Party (KMT), the principal opposition to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), is increasingly vocal in calling for a less risky approach to cross-strait relations.  Not surprisingly, Beijing is enthusiastically encouraging that trend.  PRC officials repeatedly remind the Taiwanese people that tensions were far milder during the administration of Ma Ying-jeou, Taiwan’s last KMT president, who governed the island from 2008 to 2014.  During his administration, cross-strait trade and tourism soared and the two capitals signed numerous agreements.

Beijing’s attempt to revive that cooperative atmosphere was evident when Xi and other prominent PRC figures accorded KMT chairwoman Cheng Li-wun an extremely cordial reception during her April 2026 visit to the mainland.  Cheng reciprocated with a highly conciliatory tone during her interview with the South China Morning Post the following month.  She explicitly contrasted the calm years experienced during Ma’s presidency with the acute tensions characterizing Lai’s administration.  During the former period, Cheng stated, “cross-strait relations were characterized by very friendly exchanges and were entirely free of major issues. At that time, we enjoyed significant space for international participation.” In contrast, “the nearly 10 years that followed have seen cross-strait relations rapidly deteriorate to the point of a perilous and dreadful prospect of war. This has created a sense of extreme danger, with the situation appearing to be on the verge of a breakout.”

Her strong implication was that a new KMT presidency would resume the cooperative policies that Ma had pursued.  Indeed, the KMT has already seized multiple opportunities to thwart Lai’s policy agenda.  As part of a broader opposition coalition that controls the national legislature, the party has scored some significant successes.

Taiwan is deeply divided politically.  Lai and his pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have a strong, vocal cadre of supporters.  But other Taiwanese people have become very uneasy about the surge of military tensions in the Taiwan Strait that has typified the last 6 years of DPP rule.  Restless Taiwanese voters may seek a return to the less confrontational style of the KMT.

The overall situation is murky.  One point is clear, however.  Lai lacks a strong domestic mandate to continue his confrontational posture toward Beijing.  Nor does he seem to have a united front between Japan and the United States in favor of his policies.  Tokyo may back him, given Takaichi’s attitude, but the Trump administration’s waffling raises major questions about Washington’s stance.  Lai would be wise to beat a tactical political retreat and seek to make the Taiwan issue as quiescent as possible during the remainder of his term.

Keep reading

American Liberals Silent as Hamas Crushes Anti-Hamas Protests

The “Free Palestine” movement has remained silent on the arrest, torture, and murder of anti-Hamas protesters in Palestine. The violence and repression committed by the Hamas terrorist organization against Palestinian civilians throw a wrinkle into its narrative blaming Israel and President Trump for all of the suffering in Gaza. The protests also dispel claims by the American left that Gazans want to be ruled by Hamas or that Hamas is the legitimate governing authority.

For the second time in little more than a year, Palestinians in Gaza took to the streets demanding an end to Hamas rule. According to the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, Hamas’s approval rating fell from 52 percent in December 2023 to 43 percent by May 2025. The demonstrations, organized as the “June 26 Peaceful Revolution,” reflected growing anger over nearly two decades of Hamas control, the devastation of the war, and allegations of corruption and repression.

The protests were organized across 18 locations throughout the Gaza Strip. Demonstrators called on Hamas to disarm and transfer civil administration to a transitional governing authority.

Hamas responded with a sweeping crackdown. Security forces arrested organizers, kidnapped suspected participants, threatened demonstrators, and used mosques to denounce the protests before many rallies could begin. Armed operatives arrested Gazans in the streets, seized mobile phones, restricted movement around displaced persons camps, and rounded up others at hospitals.

Although the crackdown prevented large-scale demonstrations in many areas, hundreds of Palestinians defied the threats and publicly called for Hamas’s removal.

In the days preceding the protests, Hamas launched what activist Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Gaza-born Palestinian now living in exile in the United States, described as an “industrial-scale campaign of terror, intimidation, interrogation, and blackmail” against thousands of Gazans who had planned to participate.

Keep reading

Zelensky Telegraphs 40-Day Pressure Offensive On Russia, Fueling Fears Of Slide Toward WW3

The Ukraine war is quite obviously escalating, especially regarding Ukrainian leaders seeking to “bring the war” to Russian soil, amid nightly drone attacks which have come in the hundreds and even thousands of late.

President Volodymyr Zelensky is seeking to seize on the momentum of repeat drone hits on Russian refinery and energy infrastructure – a reality Russia has suffered over many months, leading to a current fuel crisis spanning dozens of cities and regions, and especially Crimea, which has temporarily halted fuel sales to common citizens altogether this week.

Ukrainian media is touting a new Zelensky plan to ramp up the pressure on Russia over the next 40 days, aimed at “pressuring Russia to end its war”.

He has ordered Ukraine’s State Security Service (SBU) to launch a new 40-day operation, which also includes “plan for long-range sanctions, medium-range sanctions, and the results achieved by the SBU,” Zelensky said on X. He’s further calling it an “influence operation.”

Keep reading

Trump Threatens “the Islamic Republic of Iran Will No Longer Exist” Following Collapse of Ceasefire – CENTCOM Releases Footage of US Strikes

President Trump on Saturday threatened to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth after US forces launched strikes against the country for its violations of the 60-day memorandum of understanding and ceasefire.   

“It is very possible that they will never learn!” Trump said, noting that Iranian missile, drone storage locations, and coastal radar sites were hit by US aircraft.

“There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started,” he continued. “If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

United States aircraft just struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations, and coastal radar sites, for violating the Cease Fire Agreement, AGAIN! It is very possible that they will never learn! There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist! President DJT

Keep reading

In the shadow of Minab: Inside the US testing of ‘new missiles’ on Iran’s Lamerd

In Lamerd, in Iran’s southern Fars province, the threat of war gave way to reality when previously untested missiles struck a school, sports grounds and nearby neighbourhoods.

The attack came just six hours after the double-tap strikes on the Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab on 28 February, over 400km away in Hormozgan province, where 120 children, 24 staff, seven parents, a school bus driver and a pharmacist were killed.

Four missiles from a new weapon system, the Lockheed Martin Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), which had never before been seen or deployed, would be field-tested on the town of 30,000 people.

At 5.11pm (1.41pm GMT), the missiles struck a residential area where a row of homes adjoined a few neighbourhood shops.

Rounia Fakori, 12, was at volleyball practice when the first explosion shook the school building.

“We were in our practice when we heard the first impact. We rushed to the door,” she recalled.

Then another missile struck, plunging the girls and their coaches into darkness as smoke and heat filled the sports hall. The force of the blast slammed the doors shut.

“We couldn’t see anything,” the girls’ volleyball coach, Rahimeh Shehabi, told Middle East Eye. “We could only hear the screams of the children.”

As the missiles struck the school and sports hall, a football game was underway outside.

Eleven-year-old Mahdiar was playing with his friends, including 12-year-olds Ilya Khatami and Abdulmosavar Rahmani, when explosive shrapnel tore through the area.

According to Mahdiar, he and one of his friends ran towards the canopy, where their football coach, Mahmoud Najafi, called out: “Come here quickly, it’s dangerous there.”

Ilya and his coach then rushed towards the building to help open the door for the girls and women trapped inside as a fourth missile struck, rattling the sports hall.

Keep reading