Tag: perpetual war

The World’s Top Cops Are Meeting in Hong Kong

The last time the president of Interpol went to China, he texted his wife a knife emoji 🔪… and then he disappeared.

That was Meng Hongwei, Interpol’s first Chinese president. He vanished on a trip home in September 2018. A few weeks later, Interpol was informed that he had “resigned.” A Chinese court later sentenced him to 13 and a half years in prison.

So naturally, Interpol is now holding its entire General Assembly in China.

From November 30 to December 3, more than 1,000 police chiefs and senior officials from Interpol’s 196 member countries will gather in Hong Kong. It’s the third time China has hosted, after Beijing in 1995 and 2017. Hong Kong’s security chief has promised to show off the city’s vitality and institutional strengths. Reporters, meanwhile, are barred from the sessions.

As I’m sure you’ve realized from the movies, Interpol’s most powerful tool is the Red Notice. It’s basically a global “please arrest this person” alert. It’s supposed to be for murderers, traffickers, and fraudsters. Interpol’s own constitution forbids anything political.

But the CCP has a long habit of calling people “terrorists” when their actual crime is criticizing the CCP.

Take Idris Hasan, a Uyghur computer designer who had done work for Uyghur rights groups. In 2021, he flew from Turkey to Morocco and was arrested at the airport on a Chinese Red Notice labeling him a terrorist. Interpol eventually cancelled the notice for breaking its rules. But a Moroccan court approved Hasan’s extradition to China anyway.

Because once the notice goes out, the damage is done.

Keep reading

Author Claims CIA Began Dropping Armed Commandos Into Ukraine In 1947 To Stoke Guerilla Uprising Against Soviets

Stephen Kinzer, the author and Brown University senior fellow, told Bannon’s War Room on Thursday that the CIA began “dropping armed commandos into Ukraine” in 1947 “with the goal of fomenting a guerrilla uprising against the Soviet government,” the opening chapter of what he calls a 75-year American effort to push Ukraine into conflict with Russia. Kinzer was on WarRoom Battleground to discuss his new book Boiling Point.

That said, the CIA itself was created in September 1947 (the wartime OSS had been abolished in 1945, and the Central Intelligence Group filled the gap in between). The documented drops came later: Casey Michel, writing in Politico in 2022, dates the first flights over Soviet Ukraine to September 1949, and says the CIA dropped about 85 agents, three-quarters of whom were captured or killed almost immediately. The agency’s program with Ukrainian exiles, AERODYNAMIC, is listed by FOIA Research as running from 1949 to 1970. A passage quoted from the book’s description says CIA officers recruited “their first Ukrainian agents” in the refugee camps of postwar Europe; Kinzer did not say on air what he meant by 1947.

Kinzer then ran the rest of the timeline as he tells it. “It stretched all through decades until 1991 when Ukraine finally became independent,” he said, and when Ukraine wrote permanent neutrality into its constitution, “we didn’t like that. And through a series of operations that cost millions and millions of dollars, the CIA worked to change public opinion and change political opinion towards a more favorable approach to the United States.” He said that effort ended in the uprising that overthrew the neutralist government in 2014 and replaced it with “essentially a proxy of the United States,” after which Washington began “to pour weapons into Ukraine.”

Kinzer tied that to the late-stage fight John Mearsheimer warned of, which he read as meaning America would be “fighting to the last Ukrainian.” “This is one of the most outrageous parts of the Ukraine war, that the Ukrainians are just roadkill,” Kinzer said, citing U.S. senators who called the aid “the best money we’ve ever spent because we’re killing Russians.”

He did not dispute who started the 2022 war. “Russia’s the aggressor and Ukraine is the victim,” he said, but that picture is “the culminating frame in a long movie that lasted 75 years.”

Guest host Ben Harnwell then asked whether Washington had deliberately provoked Russia so the defense industry could profit. Kinzer called the question not cynical but “clear,” and offered his own version: planners saw a “win-win” in pushing NATO toward Russia’s border, because if Moscow accepted it, the U.S. could “proceed to the next step, which is trying to subvert Russia itself,” and if it invaded, “we can paint Russia as the brutal aggressor.” He added that “if Joe Biden had just pronounced five words, Ukraine will not join NATO, this whole war might have been avoided.”

Keep reading

Leak Reportedly Exposed Netanyahu & Mossad Chief’s Plan To Attack Iran Before Israeli Election

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mossad chief Roman Gofman sought to carry out an operation against Iran on the eve of Israel’s 27 October election, but the plan was thwarted after Washington was inadvertently alerted, Israeli media have reported.

A report by Channel 12 said the proposed operation was opposed by senior officials in Israel’s security establishment, who feared it could trigger a major escalation with Iran and lead to the postponement of the vote. It said preparations nevertheless continued until an Israeli security operative mistakenly alerted the United States, prompting Washington to move quickly to stop the plan.

Netanyahu’s office denied the account, saying: “The prime minister himself clarified in real time that an attack before the Israeli elections was not on the agenda.”

The report adds to allegations of tensions between Netanyahu and senior military officials over proposed action against Iran in the days before the election.

On October 25, two days before Israelis went to the polls, Channel 12 reported an “unprecedented confrontation” between Netanyahu and Israeli military chief of staff Eyal Zamir over a military action that defence officials feared could provoke a confrontation with Iran.

The network said Zamir had resisted carrying out the action and sought further deliberations, as well as signed documentation from Netanyahu confirming its legal authorization. A military source quoted by Channel 12 said: “This relates to an action that could lead to a flare-up with Iran, at a sensitive and dramatic moment, creating this [potential] miscalculation.”

The report also cited unnamed sources who said military leaders were concerned that the political leadership was seeking to “utilize the Iranian issue for political benefit”.

On October 26, a day before the election, Channels 12 and 13 reported that Zamir was the only senior Israeli security chief to oppose military action sought by Netanyahu and Defence Minister Israel Katz, amid concerns that it could trigger an escalation with Iran and disrupt the vote.

The New York Times also reported that Netanyahu had “sought for weeks to orchestrate a new airstrike on Iran” but was blocked by Zamir.  It said the military chief had become concerned that Netanyahu was pushing for a separate operation short of an overt strike, which Zamir believed could provoke an Iranian response.

Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, a critic of Netanyahu, said in an interview with Channel 12 on Thursday that the prime minister had planned to carry out “a provocation” involving Iran “via the Mossad, behind the back of the IDF chief of staff”.

Keep reading

Houthis Demand $51 Billion to End War with Saudis

Saudi Arabia approached the Houthis to determine what it would take to negotiate an end to the fighting. The answer was $51 billion, supposedly compensation for years of Saudi military operations and the blockade of Yemen. Other figures have reportedly been discussed, but the Houthis are demanding tens of billions of dollars and recognition of their authority over Yemen. This would require Riyadh to abandon the internationally recognized Yemeni government it has supported for more than a decade. The Houthis are effectively demanding that Saudi Arabia pay an enormous sum and accept an Iranian-backed adversary along its southern border.

Saudi Arabia launched its military intervention in Yemen in 2015, believing its superior military capabilities and financial resources would defeat the Houthis. More than eleven years later, the Houthis are demanding payment from the Saudis to stop fighting. They have expanded their territorial control, threatened shipping through the Bab al-Mandab Strait, and demonstrated the ability to attack Saudi oil infrastructure, airports, and pipelines. Riyadh has spent billions purchasing advanced Western weapons, yet relatively inexpensive missiles and drones continue threatening assets worth billions of dollars.

The Houthis have already demonstrated their ability to threaten Saudi Arabia’s energy infrastructure. Attacks earlier this year temporarily disrupted the kingdom’s East-West pipeline, which carries oil from the eastern production regions toward Red Sea export facilities. That pipeline is particularly important because it allows Saudi Arabia to bypass the Strait of Hormuz when Persian Gulf shipping becomes dangerous. With Iran threatening Hormuz and the Houthis operating near Bab al-Mandab, Saudi Arabia faces pressure on both of its major maritime export routes. The kingdom’s geographical position, which once made it an indispensable energy supplier, has become a source of vulnerability.

The United States has also demonstrated the limits of its security guarantees. In September, Mohammed bin Salman reportedly asked President Trump for military assistance against the Houthis. Washington declined to conduct direct strikes on the group’s behalf, although it offered intelligence and targeting support. Saudi Arabia has spent decades maintaining a strategic relationship with the United States based largely upon energy security and military cooperation. Now Riyadh is discovering that an American security partnership does not guarantee American intervention whenever Saudi interests are threatened. Washington is already deeply involved in the conflict with Iran and has little appetite for opening another major military front.

Keep reading

U.S. Helps Strike Cartel Hotspot Venezuela With Drones

One of the Trump administration‘s most successful initiatives was to designate foreign cartels as terrorist organizations, build up relationships with Latin American partners, and then strike cartel targets both on land and on the sea. The “Shield of the Americas” has led to joint operations, and Breitbart reports that the latest strikes in Venezuela are with the cooperation of the socialist government there.

Former Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro is in jail in the United States after the operation in January to capture him and put him on trial for narcoterrorism and other related offenses. The trial date is set for next June. He protected and helped many cartel criminals with their activities that led to the deaths of countless Americans through drug overdoses or violence.

Delcy Rodriguez, the controversial Maduro lieutenant now in charge who is trying to be somewhat more moderate and friendly to the United States so that she doesn’t also get captured, reportedly authorized the strikes. But the Venezuelans are utilizing American drones, according to Spanish-language media. My colleague Sarah Anderson has written extensively about Rodriguez and her relationship with the United States at the present time. The targets were ELN terrorists.

Keep reading

Till Death Do Us Part: The Unholy Matrimony Between the US and Israel

The standard narrative of American foreign policy has long rested on the pillar of moral exceptionalism: the assertion that the United States acts as a global guardian of human rights, international law and democratic governance.

However, Washington’s support for the ongoing holocaust in the occupied Gaza Strip, West Bank and unlawful war on Iran have exposed glaring contradictions at the heart of this narrative.  They reveal the true character of a political system defined not by its lofty noble declarations, but by its iniquitous decisions and actions.

These inequalities accentuate the true nature of U.S. geopolitics; essentially that human rights ideals are of little account to predatory imperial powers.

For over a century, the subjugation of Palestine and West Asia has been orchestrated through a legacy of colonial bigotry and pro-Zionist geopolitical engineering.  The region has been treated not as home to sovereign peoples but as an imperial chessboard ripe for exploitation.

The wars throughout the region, particularly on Palestine and Iran, are the culmination of imperial agendas set in motion a century ago.  The current geopolitical course began with the stroke of a pen set to the Balfour Declaration in 1917, in which a distant European empire casually bartered away a homeland that was not theirs to give.  This colonizing scheme reached its peak in the 1996 “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” document – a stratagem advanced by American neoconservatives and Zionist hardliners to reshape West Asia in Israel’s image.

Together these imperial blueprints established frameworks for domination that have led the region and global community to the precipice of disaster.

Underpinning these policies is a deeply-rooted colonial chauvinism that views the indigenous people of the region as obstacles to be displaced, managed or crushed, rather than human beings with inalienable rights to freedom, self-determination and dignity.

When examined across a century, the trajectory from Balfour to “Clean Break”  demonstrates a consistent structural logic. Whether foreign powers use imperial decrees, global mandates, diplomatic accords or military force, the goal is always the same: to secure and maintain control, fundamentally disregarding the rights of the native populations to govern themselves.

The bilateral partnership with Israel, originally formed to secure its existence, has now become a strategic liability.  The Israel that once proved useful to Washington as its regional enforcer, now seems to be in the catbird seat.

The eventual subordination of American foreign policy to Israeli strategic ambitions is not a historic accident, but the predictable outcome of a powerful deeply-entrenched military-industrial-security nexus that long ago equated regional dominance with U.S. national interests.

What began as a Cold War strategy to project American power across West Asia without a large-scale troop presence, has evolved into an institutionalized, self-perpetuating deadly alliance, in which the balance of control has become blurred.

Decades of deeply-entrenched military, intelligence and industrial ties with Tel Aviv have created an institutional inertia so powerful that Washington now reflexively accepts global criticism, regional anger and multi-trillion-dollar detours into foreign interventions as a matter of course – as a worthy price to pay for their “special relationship.”

Instead of exerting its strategic agency over a client state, the United States has become captive to Israeli dogmatism, which asserts that anything less than unconditional support signals U.S. weakness and vulnerability.  Consequently, this has fallen on American taxpayers to subsidize and service members to fight  military campaigns that compromise the nation’s interests and long-term stability.

Adding to this geopolitical trap is a domestic political echo chamber engineered to penalize flexibility and alternative strategies, while rewarding absolute conformity and compliance with Israeli objectives.

The alliance with Israel is so thoroughly embedded in the American body politic that it functions as a “third rail” of U.S. foreign policy and public discourse.  It remains above criticism through a combination of highly organized influential lobbying groups, massive political campaign financing schemes, a powerful evangelical voting bloc, and weaponization of the anti-Semitic label.

When paired with a deeply-ingrained pro-Israel media and cultural narrative that frames regional escalation as inevitable, rather than preventable, Washington’s political class most often chooses the safety of domestic capitulation over the discipline of sovereign statecraft, guaranteeing political submission to Israeli goading.

The result is a chronically unsettled America perpetually drawn into Israel’s expansionist wars.  This involvement is driven not by clear strategic necessity, but by a systemic inability in Washington to break free from domestic pressures and external mandates.

From the colonial promises of the Balfour Declaration to the “Clean Break” document, Israel has consistently prioritized expansionism over international law, formal agreements and even the strategic interests of its closest ally and main benefactor, the United States.

A core folly in Washington’s Israel/West Asian policy has been in treating a strategic burden as an indispensable ally.

Prioritizing the regional ambitions of a hegemonic foreign “ally” over core U.S. interests have entangled America in Israel’s reckless wars and conflicts.  Decades of blank-check diplomacy have inflamed anti-American sentiment, compromised its global credibility, strained vital alliances, and drained finite military and economic resources that would be better directed toward urgent domestic needs.

Paradoxically, the imperial strategies meant to safeguard Israel at the expense of West Asia are now taking a toll on America as well.  The United States will not, and cannot, recover its strategic autonomy and moral leadership unless it makes a clean break from its damaging relationship with Israel.

Keep reading

A Billion Dollars and the Men Who Ran Israel’s Wars

The weapons a country fights with, the software that aims them, and the officers who command them were for a century things a state owned and could not put up for sale. That arrangement is coming apart. One by one these assets are being bought by private companies, financed through public stock markets, and traded like any other holding, and the firm that has carried the process furthest spent most of its life making radios for freight trains.

The shift is visible first in a component the size of a thumb. A fuze decides the instant a drone turns into a bomb: it holds the weapon inert through storage and flight and arms it only at the chosen second. An Israeli company called Gate Technologies, founded in 1996, builds these electronic fuzes, and its hardware is designed into more than ninety weapon systems, among them the loitering munitions that circle a battlefield until they dive into it. In September the fuze maker, with its Polish manufacturing partner, was bought for up to $390 million by a Nasdaq company called Ondas.

Two years ago Ondas sold radios to freight railroads. It reported $7.2 million in revenue for all of 2024, earned four hundred thousand dollars of gross profit on it, and had never turned a yearly profit in its life. Its shares changed hands for as little as fifty-five cents. In the eighteen months since, the same company has bought around twenty weapons firms for more than two billion dollars, reached a market value near four billion, installed a former director of the Mossad as the chairman of its defense arm, and moved to buy the software that aims Iron Dome. The change was bought, not earned.

The arithmetic says where the money came from. Revenue did climb, to $50.7 million in 2025, almost all of it carried in from businesses acquired in the second half of the year, and the company still lost $133 million over the twelve months, including a $101 million loss in the fourth quarter alone. What rose without pause was the share count, from ninety-three million at the end of 2024 to 380 million a year later, a quadrupling that diluted every existing holder to fund the buying. The purchases were financed by more than $1.8 billion in equity raised after June 2025 and another $960 million in January 2026, and the structure rests on a $489 million warrant liability whose value a single repricing swung by $82 million in one quarter. Having folded twenty companies into itself, Ondas tells investors to expect $375 million in revenue in 2026 and its first profit no earlier than 2028. The business is the stock, and the stock runs on the belief that the buying will keep compounding.

The purchases read as a map of modern war. Apeiro Motion for $12 million in August 2025, then three smaller firms in demining and optics across October. The counter-drone company Sentrycs for $224.6 million in November. The ground-robotics maker Roboteam, whose machines are sold as combat-proven for special operations forces, for $81.7 million in December. Rotron Aerospace, Bird Aerospace and INDO Earth inside a single month, for thirty-nine, one hundred ten and sixty million dollars. The American defense contractor Mistral for $175 million, with stakes taken in a stratospheric-balloon company and two more drone makers alongside. Earlier deals had already brought in Airobotics, Iron Drone, Omnisys and Aran. By Calcalist’s count the total since 2025 runs past two billion dollars across roughly twenty firms, the great majority of them Israeli. Laid end to end they form a whole kill chain under one ticker symbol: detection, interception, ground robots, sensors, propulsion, and what the company’s filings call long-range one-way effectors, the industry’s term for drones built to fly once and detonate.

Two of the purchases reach the center of Israel’s own defenses, and it is there that the private market meets the limit of what a state will allow. The fuzes from Gate arm the weapons. The second asset, mPrest, is the software that runs the command and control of Iron Dome, the system Israel relies on to decide what to shoot out of its own sky. mPrest is a subsidiary of the state-owned manufacturer Rafael, which would be left holding 43.25 percent once Ondas took control, and the deal values it near two hundred million dollars. The Defense Ministry’s security directorate, known by its acronym MALMAB, has frozen the transaction on the ground that the technology is classified. The question the directorate is said to be unable to settle is the one that hangs over everything the company has done. Late last year an investor whose identity Ondas refuses to reveal placed about a billion dollars into the firm, and that single infusion is what prompted the inquiry. The ministry has declined to disclose what it found, and questions put to the prime minister’s office went unanswered. The company calls its funding broad investor support. The reporting describes one unnamed backer. When the arsenal becomes a traded asset, its ultimate owner can stay anonymous, and a government can find that it no longer knows who is buying the most sensitive parts of its own defense.

The people arrive with the money, and they come straight from the offices that until recently ran this industry. In August, Ondas named David Barnea the global president and chairman of its defense arm, two months after he stepped down as director of the Mossad, a post he held from 2021 to 2026 across the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, the pager operation that detonated across Lebanon, and the bombing campaigns against Iran. The company says the appointment carried full approval from the Mossad’s legal advisers and is separate from his public service, and it says it hired him to open doors to foreign defense ministries and procurement bodies, which means selling to the establishments he spent his career inside. The market priced the hire within hours and lifted the shares eleven percent in two days. Behind him came the former chief executive of Rafael, Yoav Har-Even, a former head of military research and development at the Defense Ministry, and a line of other Rafael and ministry veterans. The distance between what the state asks of its departing officials and what this company takes from them is measurable in months: a former defense-research chief joining as a vice president was made to observe a ten-month cooling-off period imposed by a Jerusalem court committee, while the former head of the Mossad observed two, a speed a security source said the agency had once treated much more strictly.

Above the hardware sits the software, and here the ownership is not Israeli at all. In its own results Ondas describes what the arrangement buys: access to the full platform of the American data company Palantir, including its Maven targeting system and the advanced command and control used to run a mission. In March, Palantir joined Ondas and a stratospheric-sensing firm in a partnership built around three programs, with integration across the Ondas fleet to begin late in 2026. What Palantir does with that software elsewhere is a matter of its own disclosures. In early 2024 it agreed with Israel’s defense ministry to supply technology for “war-related missions”. A shareholder resolution filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, drawing on reporting by The Independent, Reuters and the New York Times, states that Maven was used to identify targets in hundreds of strikes during the United States and Israeli bombing of Iran, and records the company’s chief executive crediting it with most of the targeting in Ukraine. Palantir denies building the automated targeting tools the Israeli military used in Gaza, and the reporting the filing cites ties its platform to those systems regardless. Two large pension managers, Norway’s Storebrand and the Dutch fund ABP, have sold out over the exposure. This is the layer that will bind the Ondas arsenal together, and it is the layer the Israeli review of mPrest never reaches, because the review stops at Israeli ownership and the software is American.

The model has an origin, and it runs back to the agency that first used it. Palantir was carried through its early years by In-Q-Tel, the venture arm of the CIA, which made two rounds of investment totaling more than two million dollars, and from 2005 to 2008 the agency was the company’s only customer, shaping the product through years of testing while the venture capitalist Peter Thiel’s own forty million dollars kept it alive. A state grew its intelligence software inside a private company, and twenty years on that company supplies the command layer for a conglomerate assembling an allied state’s arsenal on a stock exchange.

What began with the fuze ends with a frontier. Ondas has formed a joint venture, 51 percent owned, with the German press-machinery maker Heidelberg to build inside Europe’s largest defense market, and its Airobotics subsidiary has won a government tender to ring a national border with a system designed around thousands of drones and the software to fly them.

None of this is the story of one strange company. Ondas is the clearest form of a general process, the turning of the security state into an asset class, in which the weapons, the software that aims them, the plants that build them and the officers who ran them are bought, financed through share sales, and traded like stock in anything else. The thing that market cannot deliver is the thing a state once took as a given, that it knows whose hands its own arsenal is in. The one purchase the Israeli government has refused to wave through is the one that reaches the brain of its own shield. The investor behind everything else has still not put his name to any of it, and the longer that holds, the more it looks less like an exception than a preview.

Keep reading

Pentagon Delivers 25,000+ Drones And Counter-Drone Systems To CENTCOM In A “Massive Surge”

The U.S. Department of War announced on Wednesday that a “massive surge” of over 25,000 drone and counter-drone systems were delivered to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) this year.

The drones and counter-drone systems were delivered by the Pentagon’s Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager, a structure implemented by the U.S. military to accelerate the development, procurement, and fielding of unmanned technology. The Pentagon said delivery of the systems was part of an investment of roughly $782 million.

The announcement comes after Secretary of War Pete Hegseth directed the Pentagon in September to remove what he described as “unnecessary barriers” causing delays in counter-drone capabilities and to accelerate the use of capabilities designed to provide a defense against unmanned aircraft systems.

The deliveries announced on Wednesday included more than 24,000 counter-unmanned aerial systems, which the Pentagon said can be used to create a “multi-layered defensive shield” to protect U.S. forces against enemy drone attacks through Joint Interagency Task Force 401.

The Pentagon created the task force in August 2025 to counter threats posed by drones. U.S. military bases have been repeatedly targeted by drones in recent years.

Other deliveries included more than 1,300 one-way attack unmanned aerial vehicles, more than 100 unmanned surface vessels, and unmanned underwater vessels.

“Under Secretary Hegseth’s direction, we are moving at the speed of modern combat to equip our forces with decisive, affordable mass,” Owen West, CEO of Project Agincourt and Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems, said in a statement on Wednesday.

“DRPM-UxS (Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems) was established to cut through red tape and put lethal technology directly into the hands of our frontline troops.”

Hegseth announced Project Agincourt in a speech on Sept. 30 as a Pentagon effort to accelerate the adoption of autonomous systems.

The Pentagon said the delivery of over 25,000 drone and counter-drone systems to CENTCOM demonstrates the department’s shift from multiyear development to what it described as a “Warfighting Acquisition” model and a restructuring of its defense procurement.

The effort also supports the development of the Autonomous Warfare Command, which was announced by Hegseth in September. The command, which the Pentagon aims to have established by October 2027, will be tasked with scaling both autonomous and robotic capabilities across the U.S. military.

In addition to delivering additional autonomous systems to CENTCOM, the Pentagon said it will expand fielding pipelines for the technology to Pacific Command, European Command, and the broader military force.

“The thousands of systems operating across CENTCOM this year are just the beginning,” West said. “We will out-innovate, out-build, and out-adapt any adversary on the battlefield. The goal is to scale these capabilities across the Joint Force.”

The Pentagon also announced on Wednesday that it awarded a contract of over $6.9 million to CHAOS 1, Inc., for Vanquish Prime advanced radar systems aimed at strengthening counter-drone protection for U.S. military forces and critical assets in the CENTCOM region.

The Pentagon said the advanced radar systems will improve situational awareness by helping U.S. forces identify and track potential aerial threats.

The radar systems will be delivered to designated locations in CENTCOM’s area of responsibility as part of the contract, which also includes training and technology for the integration and operational use of the systems.

“This acquisition is a testament to our commitment to providing the warfighter with the most advanced capabilities available,” said Lt. Col. Matthew Strohman, Joint Interagency Task Force 401’s capability manager for mobile counter-unmanned aircraft Systems.

“The threat from unmanned systems is real and constantly evolving. By equipping our forces in CENTCOM with state-of-the-art technology, we are ensuring they have the decisive edge needed to protect our personnel and secure our strategic interests. This is about delivering the right tools at the speed of relevance.”

Last month, the Pentagon also signed a framework agreement with BAE Systems to increase production of interceptor kits used to defend against drones and other aerial threats. Under the agreement, the Pentagon would purchase up to 25,000 interceptor kits each year for up to seven years

Keep reading

IT BEGINS: Rep. Thomas Massie Says He Plans to Reintroduce Articles of Impeachment Against Hegseth Unless He Resigns

War Secretary Pete Hegseth may face an impeachment vote before the next Congress is seated, as some Republicans, led by Rep. Thomas Massie, are planning to vote on an impeachment resolution after a stunning midterm loss that is widely attributed to the Iran war.

Massie previously introduced articles of impeachment against Hegseth back in September.

CNN is reporting that some GOPers are expecting the latest impeachment resolution to pass in the House as Republican lawmakers turn on Hegseth.

Trump has defended Hegseth, telling reporters on Tuesday that he is not considering firing him.

“No, I think he’s doing a very good job,” Trump said.

Asked if Hegseth should replace Marsha Blackburn in the Senate after her successful run for Governor in Tennessee, Trump said again, “I think he’s doing a very good job.”

Still, Trump said, “I actually think he’d be very popular if he did that, but I haven’t heard that at all.”

Keep reading

THIS AGED WELL: Trump Bombing Iran Will Be The End Of His Presidency

Originally posted on April 23, 2025

The neocons want war with Iran, and they will do anything to get it — say anything, do anything, lie, steal cheat…whatever they need to do.

If we value our republic, we must stop this outcome in the Middle East.

America cannot afford another major war, and yes, this will be a major war, touching off a global conflagration.

People you are close to will die.

These deaths will not just happen in the Middle East, Iran has imported a vast cadre of terrorists inside the United States thanks to Manchurian candidate Biden. It could happen at a shopping mall, a gas station, a grocery store, a day care.

America will not be able live ‘life as normal’ after an attack on Iran.

We also can’t afford it. The Biden regime depleted our weapons stores in Ukraine. Our military is up to its eyeballs in DEI, Maoist indoctrination.

A war with Iran will not end well for us.

The globalist cabal sees the Ukraine war ending, time to start another one, to finish off America, and let the Chinese hordes mop it up afterwards.

Keep reading