The Permanent War Government: Who’s Really Calling the Shots in Washington?

Who is actually running the government?

That is no longer a rhetorical question.

As America’s war with Iran lurches from escalation to ceasefire to renewed threats of military force, Americans are being asked to trust that someone, somewhere, knows what they are doing.

But who?

This is the constitutional crisis hiding in plain sight.

The question is not merely whether Donald Trump is fit to lead. The question is whether any president still leads in any meaningful constitutional sense once the permanent war government gets moving.

The Iran war is merely the latest test case.

If the war machine keeps moving even when the public cannot tell who is steering it, then what remains of constitutional government?

This is the nightmare Rod Serling warned about in Seven Days in May.

Released in 1964, Seven Days in May imagined a dramatic military coup: generals plotting in secret to overthrow an unpopular president because they believed they knew better than the American people what was best for the nation.

The coup is eventually foiled. The republic is saved. The Constitution survives.

At least on screen.

In the real world, the plot has thickened and spread out over decades.

The old fear was that the military might seize power from the civilian government.

The modern reality is that the permanent government does not need to seize power.

It already has it.

The coup no longer requires generals in smoke-filled rooms plotting to overthrow the president at midnight. It does not require tanks on Pennsylvania Avenue or soldiers storming the Capitol. It does not even require an official suspension of the Constitution.

All it requires is secrecy, fear, endless war, executive power, emergency declarations, classified intelligence, compliant courts, cowardly legislators, corporate profiteers, militarized police, and a public too distracted, exhausted or frightened to resist.

That coup has been underway for decades.

Keep reading

Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

The Pentagon has spent months positioning the troops and weapons needed for the U.S. to launch a military attack on Cuba — all it needs is a final go-ahead from Donald Trump.

The president has floated an invasion of the island after economic and political pressure failed to topple the Communist government. But the Navy’s built-up presence in the region — the largest in the world outside the Middle East — would allow the U.S. to act immediately.

These strategically placed assets set the table for military action, from a capture of Havana’s leadership much like the seizure of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, to a series of precision strikes. And they open the possibility that the U.S. throws itself into the third international conflict of the Trump administration.

Cuba is “in a lot of trouble,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday at a full Cabinet meeting. “Having a failed state 90 miles from our shores is a threat to the national security of the United States.”

The armada in the region is slightly smaller than it was in January when the U.S. captured Maduro. But the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group entered the Caribbean in May, along with several guided missile destroyers and cruisers that can launch precision missiles at targets onshore. An array of advanced American drones and surveillance aircraft have also circled Cuba for months, according to flight tracking sites. The USS Kearsarge amphibious ships and escorts, which carry 2,500 Marines, are off the coast of Virginia preparing for a new deployment, and could replace some ships heading home.

The surge provides a variety of military options, although the Pentagon would need additional troops for a massive ground invasion.

The Nimitz arrived in the region on the same day as the U.S. indicted former president Raul Castro, in what appeared a public show of force. “The Nimitz is likely there primarily for intimidation, though it could be used in a military operation if needed,” said Mark Cancian, a former Pentagon official and now a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The ship, along with fighter planes based in Florida and Puerto Rico, would probably play a role in any military action in Cuba, he said. “Air strikes are possible to take out their air defenses to allow broader air operations or, perhaps, destroy their leadership with the idea of establishing a relationship as we have with Venezuela. Raul Castro would be their first target.”

Keep reading

How Western Intelligence Agencies Built the Global Jihadist Network

Americans have been fed a comforting fairy tale about Islamic terrorism. Radical jihadists attack the West simply because they despise freedom, democracy, and the American way of life. This narrative flatters domestic audiences while conveniently obscuring a far more troubling reality. For decades, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel have armed, financed, tolerated, and tapped into Sunni Islamist extremists as geopolitical tools to destabilize rivals. The evidence spans multiple theaters and rests on declassified documents, congressional investigations, and credible investigative journalism.

The most thoroughly documented case is Operation Cyclone, the CIA program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen from 1979 to 1992. In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski confirmed that the CIA began aiding mujahideen opponents of the pro-Soviet Kabul government six months before the Soviet invasion—a calculated provocation intended to draw Moscow into an unwinnable war. When asked if he regretted supporting Islamic fundamentalism that gave “arms and advice to future terrorists,” Brzezinski replied:

“What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”

Multiple intelligence agencies participated in this operation. MI6 ran covert operations supporting hardline commanders. Pakistan’s ISI served as the critical financial and logistical conduit—operating under the direction of Pakistani President Zia ul-Haq, who controlled ISI policy throughout the war. Saudi Arabia agreed to match CIA contributions dollar for dollar, a commitment secured when Brzezinski visited Riyadh in February 1980 and one that CIA officer Gust Avrakotos and congressman Charlie Wilson (D-TX) would fly to Riyadh to enforce whenever Saudi payments fell behind. Historian Steve Coll documented in Ghost Wars that Osama bin Laden informally cooperated with ISI-run guerrilla training camps on behalf of newly arrived Arab jihadists, with intimate connections to CIA-backed commander Jalaluddin Haqqani. The global jihadist network that became al-Qaeda grew directly from this infrastructure.

The Afghan theater was not an isolated experiment but the opening chapter of a longer story. The same networks it created spread rapidly to the next front. The Chechen insurgency of the 1990s was joined by Arab and Central Asian jihadists who had cut their teeth in Afghanistan. The most prominent was Ibn Khattab, a Saudi-born mujahideen veteran born in 1969 inʿAr’ar, Saudi Arabia, who left for the Afghan jihad at age 18 before entering Chechnya in 1995. Saudi-backed organizations funneled funds, and Gulf state charities developed during the Afghan jihad maintained, in some cases wittingly and in others not, support for al-Qaeda-affiliated groups throughout the decade. Several of the future 9/11 conspirators—including Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—originally sought to travel to Chechnya in 1999 before being redirected to al-Qaeda’s Afghan camps, per the 9/11 Commission.

Keep reading

Trump Administration Slams ‘False Reporting’ by EU Top Diplomat Kaja Kallas Claiming That US Diplomats Had Left Kiev Ahead of Expected Missile and Drone Strikes

Many feel Kallas is not up to the job.

Of all the bloated bureaucracies installed in Brussels, the seemingly less effective official is the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas.

In yet another of her faux-pas, she announced that the heroic European diplomats were still in Kiev, while the American would have fled after the Russian warnings of massive drone and missile attacks programmed for the next days and weeks.

But no one’s surprise, the information was incorrect, prompting US officials to criticize her statement, calling it a ‘false reporting’.

The Telegraph reported:

“Kaja Kallas, the EU’s most senior diplomat, claimed the US was the only country to evacuate its embassy in response to Russian threats against the Ukrainian capital over the weekend, while praising Europeans’ courage for remaining in place.

But in an unusual intervention highlighting the tensions between Washington and Brussels, the US embassy in Ukraine stated: ‘There are no changes to our operations, and reports otherwise are false’.”

Keep reading

Beirut Rocked By Israeli Airstrikes After Month Of Quiet, 14 Dead

For several days, the Israelis have been warning of new military strikes on Lebanon’s capital. People have been seen flooding out of the southern suburbs which have been a historic stronghold of Hezbollah support.

Amid ongoing ground fighting between IDF and Hezbollah forces in the south, Thursday finally saw heavy airstrikes on the capital. “An Israeli strike hit a building in the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital on Thursday, killing at least 14 people, the first strike to hit near Beirut in weeks amid a ceasefire that has failed to halt fighting between Israeli troops and Hezbollah in south Lebanon,” Reuters reports.

Follow-up reporting indicates the death toll across the nation amid the flare-up in bombing raids is at 16 and counting, amid emergency crews picking through the rubble:

At least 16 people have been killed and 58 wounded in Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon, according to Lebanese health authorities, as Israel intensifies its assault and issues mass displacement orders across the region.

Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency reported on Thursday that six of the victims belonged to the same family. They were killed in an Israeli drone strike while trying to flee at dawn along the Adloun Highway, a key route linking Sidon and Tyre, it said.

Keep reading

Next Drone War: Hidden Shipping Containers Launching Kamikaze Swarms

Continuing our theme that the endgame in drone warfare is nowhere near complete, and in many ways is only just beginning, a U.S. company called DZYNE Technologies has developed a containerized mass-launch system for kamikaze drones.

Under the guise of a regular shipping container, DZYNE‘s BlitzBox signals the next phase of drone wars: not just cheaper drones, but the ability to launch them at scale from concealed, mobile, and rapidly deployable platforms. 

The battlefield is shifting from individual launches to containerized swarm warfare, where dozens or even hundreds of low-cost suicide drones can be launched in waves to overwhelm some of the most advanced air defense systems, strike high-value assets, or generate mass effects at relatively low cost.

DZYNE’s Connor Toler told defense tech outlet TWZ that BlitzBox can be operated with as much human control or automated functionality as the mission requires.

Toler noted that DZYNE is working on a 40-foot shipping container capable of launching upwards of 100 one-way attack drones.

He added that DZYNE has already “worked with several customers across the DOW [Department of War]” regarding the BlitzBox.

The drone playbook with BlitzBox appears similar to Ukraine’s move about a year ago, where a box truck full of attack drones was deployed deep within Russia to strike several long-range bombers on the tarmac of a military base.

Asymmetric and irregular warfare is shifting into hyperdrive. As we’ve noted, Ukraine has become the world’s AI weapons laboratory, and the drone wars are still only in their opening chapters

Keep reading

Hegseth outlines record-breaking defense budget featuring largest military pay raise in decades

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has unveiled a historic, generational investment aimed at modernizing America’s warfighters, transforming the Pentagon’s business model and revitalizing the domestic defense manufacturing sector.

On Thursday, Hegseth highlighted that of the proposed $1.5 trillion military investment for Fiscal Year 2027, $90 billion would be allocated toward revitalizing barracks and facilities. In the video, Hegseth said the funding “will get rid of all substandard and failing barracks.”

Under the proposed framework, military personnel would also receive a targeted, tiered pay increase: a 7% raise for those in grades E-5 and below, a 6% increase for grades E-6 to O-3, and a 5% bump for O-4 and above.

Beyond direct compensation, the budget channels $35 million into robust family support systems. This includes fully funding military healthcare — with the strategic goal of making Tricare a more desirable option than Medicare — while simultaneously investing in base childcare, youth programs, upgraded commissaries, and enhanced military schools. Additionally, permanent change of station (PCS) task forces and spousal employment initiatives will receive dedicated capital to ensure smoother transitions during relocations.

“Taking care of our troops isn’t just about doing the right thing; it’s about military readiness,” Hegseth asserted. “When our warfighters know their families are safe, secure, and provided for, they can maintain total focus on the mission.”

According to Hegseth, the massive funding injection is designed to simultaneously address service member quality of life, remediate substandard military barracks, and rapidly put the defense industrial base back onto a wartime footing. The secretary framed the historic top-line request as the definitive execution of President Donald Trump’s America First agenda.

Keep reading

Double Standards of Diplomacy

On May 22, Russia accused Ukraine of deadly attack on student dormitory in the Luhansk region. More than 20 people were killed and about 40 were injured, many of them young women.

All of this is painfully reminiscent of the deadly US missile attack on a school in Minab, Iran, in February 2026. The strike killed more than 150 civilians, the vast majority of whom were children.

The most terrible thing is that, both then and now, the countries responsible for the attacks hid behind a wall of disinformation. Its politicians shift the blame, make numerous contradictory statements and accuse their victims of even greater crimes. It’s not surprising as all of these are favourite propaganda tactics used to distract public attention.

It’s pertinent to note, that modern satellite technology makes it possible to track the direction of attack, identify those responsible, and conduct a prompt investigation, especially when it comes to potential harm to children. However, while the European political machine immediately constructed a discourse about US involvement in the case of the strike on Minab School, at the emergency UN Security Council meeting on the attack on Starobilsk, European diplomats insisted that Ukraine’s involvement could not be verified or confirmed due to a lack of access to the site of the tragedy. It’s as if Europe ever had access to the site of the tragedy in Minab!

Keep reading

Self-Engineered Decay: Why Israel’s Political Collapse Cannot Be Separated from Its War Crimes

For those unfamiliar with the intricate machinery of Israeli politics, the unanimous 110-0 vote to dissolve the Knesset on May 20 appears to be an earth-shattering event. On the surface, it looks as if the days of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition of far-right extremists are numbered. The reality, however, is far more complex.

Israel’s current political implosion is fundamentally tied to its failure to escape the ghosts of October 7. When the country’s military defenses collapsed on that day, Israel was transformed from a state with a formidable reputation as an invincible regional superpower into one trapped with a struggling army, structurally incapable of decisively winning a single war.

Since the launch of the devastating genocide in Gaza, neither the Israeli government nor the military establishment has been able to answer two fundamental questions:

One, how did the world’s self-proclaimed “invincible army” collapse in a matter of hours, leaving the entire Southern Command – whose sole job was to keep Gazans besieged – in total shambles?

Two, why has that same heavily funded military machine failed to achieve a decisive victory despite the near-total destruction of the Strip and the unprecedented slaughter and wounding of much of its population?

Complicating the matter is Benjamin Netanyahu’s pathological refusal to honestly investigate either the October 7 intelligence failure or the subsequent conduct of the Gaza war. Instead, he focused entirely on domestic damage control and image management, aggressively marginalizing or firing intelligence official, or high-ranking bureaucrats who challenged his narrative. Rather than pursuing a viable exit strategy, Netanyahu treated the defense apparatus as a public relations shield.

Consequently, opposition voices – initially led by Yair Lapid and his Yesh Atid party – began demanding Netanyahu’s resignation and snap elections. What began as predictable political fallout quickly evolved into a sweeping popular movement.

Public confidence in the government continues to plummet. Recent opinion polls consistently show that a vast majority of Israelis believe Netanyahu acts out of personal political survival rather than national interest. Data suggests that if elections were held today, his right-wing bloc would suffer a catastrophic defeat at the hands of a newly consolidated opposition – namely Beyachad (‘Together’), the newly formed unified list established by Naftali Bennett and Lapid.

Netanyahu, whose legacy as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister is now defined by strategic failure, subsists in a profound personal and political crisis. His deliberate escalations of regional conflict served no distinct military purpose; instead, they merely highlighted his desperation, turning his rhetorical pledges of “total victory” into a hollow attempt to prevent his coalition from fracturing.

Meanwhile, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich exploited Netanyahu’s vulnerability to advance their own extremist agendas. Bent on rapid colonial expansion, they accelerated West Bank annexation, pushed draconian laws to execute Palestinian prisoners, and tightened the siege on occupied East Jerusalem.

Under normal circumstances, the sheer scale of the domestic, economic, and diplomatic harm engineered by this coalition should have removed it from power. Yet Netanyahu survived by exploiting deep social fractures and relying on unconditional support from Washington.

This survival shield was further fortified by the initial impotence of a fragmented political opposition and a perpetual wartime atmosphere that Netanyahu cultivated to freeze dissent. Not even his corruption trials derailed his career; he adapted state institutions into instruments of personal survival.

Yet the ultimate irony of Israeli politics is that pressure came not from mounting casualties or international isolation, but from compulsory military conscription of the ultra-Orthodox, or Haredim.

For decades, secular Israelis complained about the sweeping draft exemptions granted to yeshiva students, but the political elite routinely shrugged it off as a secondary culture war that could be managed via backroom political dealings.

Israel’s overextended, multi-front war of attrition completely smashed that equilibrium. The issue was violently pushed back to the surface because the military quite literally ran out of bodies. The true gravity of this manpower crisis was exposed when the army Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, explicitly broke ranks during a closed-door security cabinet meeting to warn that “the IDF is going to collapse in on itself.”

Keep reading

Trump Admin’s Counterterrorism Strategy Targets Left-Wing Violence Biden Denied Existed

President Trump signed a new counterterrorism strategy identifying three primary threats to the United States: narco-terrorists and transnational gangs, global jihadists including al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and violent left-wing extremists including anarchists and anti-fascists.

These categories are not as distinct as they appear. Domestic left-wing organizations have documented operational ties to Hamas-linked networks, with the same financial infrastructure financing campus encampments, Gaza flotillas organized by designated terrorist entities, and solidarity operations supporting hostile foreign governments.

Open borders and opposition to immigration enforcement, central tenets of the left-wing political program, directly enabled the transnational gangs and cartel networks responsible for human trafficking, drug trafficking, fentanyl overdose deaths, gang violence, rape, intimidation, and murder in American communities, making the three threat categories, in practice, mutually reinforcing.

The 16-page document reorients federal priorities away from the white supremacist organizations Biden designated as the primary domestic threat, groups that produced no operational terrorism record, and toward left-wing, jihadist-linked, and transnational criminal networks that were generating documented mass violence, territorial seizures, and attacks on federal law enforcement throughout the Biden years.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence annual threat assessments continued throughout Biden’s tenure to lead with China, Russia, Iran, and transnational terrorism, not domestic right-wing groups, as top-tier strategic threats.

The FBI’s 2021 congressional testimony declared racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically white supremacists, the top domestic terrorism threat, citing incident counts from 2018 and 2019, two years in which white supremacists were the primary source of lethal domestic attacks. The FBI did not disclose that in 2020, the year before that testimony, no lethal attacks were committed by white supremacists at all, and that three of the four lethal domestic extremist attacks that year were carried out by left-wing anarchist.

The most documented of those was the August 2020 killing of Patriot Prayer supporter Aaron Danielson in Portland by Michael Forest Reinoehl, a self-described “100% antifa” supporter who told a journalist he had no regrets.

The statistical case was methodologically flawed regardless, counting incidents rather than measuring organizational capacity, lethality, or coordinated group activity, and including lone actors with no organizational affiliation. The result was a picture that supported a political narrative without establishing that named organizations, the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, or KKK, were running operational terrorism campaigns inside the United States. None were.

Keep reading