Tag: perpetual war

Germany Aims to Become EU’s Strongest Military Force by 2039

Germany has now openly declared its intention to become the dominant conventional military power in Europe by 2039. What Berlin is doing is a structural shift that has been building quietly for years, and now it is being formalized in plain sight. The plan calls for expanding the Bundeswehr to roughly 460,000 personnel, including reserves, with about 260,000 active troops, effectively doubling the scale of its usable force compared to today.

What stands out is that this is taking place at the same time Germany’s economy is stagnating, with growth forecasts collapsing toward just 0.5% while inflation rises due to energy pressures and geopolitical tensions. You are witnessing the classic historical pattern where governments shift resources toward military buildup as economic conditions weaken. This is precisely how capital is redirected during periods of rising geopolitical risk.

Germany’s military budget tells the real story. The Bundeswehr is now operating with roughly €108.2 billion in 2026, making it one of the largest defense budgets in the world, and a dramatic departure from the decades when Germany refused to even meet NATO’s 2% threshold. Just a few years ago, Germany was spending closer to €80–90 billion annually, and now projections show spending rising toward €150–160 billion by 2029, or roughly 3.5% of GDP.

This is a staggering transformation. For decades, Germany deliberately maintained a weak military posture as part of the post–World War II settlement. Now they are not only rearming, but they are also explicitly stating they intend to be the strongest conventional force in Europe. That would have been unthinkable twenty years ago.

From the perspective of the Economic Confidence Model and the war cycle, this fits perfectly into the timing window we have been warning about. The arrays have been showing a convergence of civil unrest and international war cycles into 2026–2027. What we are seeing in Germany is not isolated. It is part of a broader shift across Europe, where governments are preparing for sustained conflict risk, not a temporary crisis.

Germany has also moved beyond simply increasing spending. They are restructuring the entire military system, including technology integration, AI-driven warfare, and logistics infrastructure that can support rapid deployment across Europe. This is preparation for long-term engagement capability, not defensive posturing. Once governments begin investing at this scale, they are not planning for peace. They are preparing for confrontation.

Keep reading

Report: Iran Using Russian and Chinese Technology to Improve Drone Accuracy

Defense analysts and security officials told The National on Monday that Iran is “relying on Chinese and Russian-made guidance chips” to improve the accuracy of its drone and missile attacks.

“Key to the advance is special computer chips designed for sophisticated navigation systems placed in Iran’s Shahed drones and its ballistic missiles,” the report said.

These chips allow Iran’s drones and ballistic missiles to employ Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna (CRPA) communications, which protect the attack vehicle from electronic jamming.

CRPA is an antenna system that skips rapidly between different frequencies and signal sources to defeat jamming attempts. Combined with refinements to the navigational software of a drone or missile, CRPA antennas help remotely-guided vehicles to operate in dense electronic warfare environments that would be overwhelming for less sophisticated communications systems.

CRPA only works if the remote vehicle has been equipped with very sophisticated electronics to handle inputs from multiple onboard antennas and external transmitters, adjusting on the fly to spoofing and jamming attacks.

According to The National’s report, the Iranians acquired such chips recently from its patrons in Russia and China and rapidly began upgrading its weapons, which allowed them to perform much better than the missiles and drones Iran launched at Israel in 2024. It also seems likely that Iran enjoyed targeting assistance from Russian satellites and ground stations this time around.

“CRPA allows drones and missiles to filter out jamming signals and lock onto genuine satellite data. That means they can stay on target even in heavily defended airspace. It’s a capability that, until recently, was largely confined to more advanced military powers,” a Western official told The National.

Other analysts pointed to Iran’s lucrative exchange of drone technology with Russia, during which Iran initially supplied Russia with huge numbers of its inexpensive Shahed kamikaze drones to overcome Ukraine’s advantage in drone warfare. The Russians later began building their own versions of the Shahed, with technological improvements, and sent some of the knockoffs back to Iran.

Durham University astrophysics professor Bleddyn Bowen noted that China may also be supplying Iran with access to the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS), China’s version of the Global Positioning System (GPS). China’s version of GPS is much more accurate than Russia’s, which is known as Glonass.

Keep reading

Nuclear Weapons Didn’t Save Lives in 1945. They Wouldn’t Today Either

False historical narratives abound in our contentious and divided world, as leaders and complicit historians endeavor to use public understanding of the past to push policies and gain control in the present. One of the most egregious cases is the widely accepted account of the decision by U.S. leaders to drop the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9 of 1945, respectively.

The generally held view, which is frequently taught in schools across the U.S. and beyond, is that the bombings were necessary to save lives, both American and Japanese; just how many lives were saved has itself been subject to debate, though President Harry Truman claimed half a million U.S. lives in his 1955 memoirs. This assessment is not only disputed by the facts, but it ignores the realities of what the bombings meant for the initiation of the Cold War and the future of humanity, in a world long awash with civilization-ending weapons.

Most importantly, the bombings quite simply were unnecessary. There were at least three ways that Japanese surrender could have been induced without the instantaneous killing of more than a hundred thousand civilians and another several hundred thousand men, women, and children being subjected to third-degree burns, injuries, and radiation exposure that would either end their lives shortly thereafter, or cause health problems in the years and decades following the fateful attacks.

One option was that the U.S. could have altered the surrender terms to make them acceptable to the Japanese. What most Japanese leaders wanted in early August of 1945 was to keep their Emperor and the kokutai or emperor system. The Americans, who knew this from intercepted cables, should have accepted this term; they would eventually agree anyway out of self-interest. Sadly, most of Truman’s top military and political advisors urged this course of action, but Truman, with the support of Secretary of State Jimmy Byrnes, refused.

Another possibility was to allow the Soviet Union to proceed with its ground invasion upon declaring a war on Japan at midnight on August 8. The Joint Intelligence Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff predicted on April 11, “If at any time the USSR should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable.”  As Japan’s Supreme War Council stated in May, “At the present moment when Japan is waging a life-or-death struggle against the U.S. and Britain, Soviet entry into the war will deal a death blow to the Empire.” Japan would have surrendered once it saw that it would be fighting both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Moreover, President Truman knew that the Soviets were about to invade, and wrote at least twice that that would end the war.

The last, albeit arguably the weakest, alternative was to demonstrate the enormous power of the atomic bomb by exploding it, as was done on July 16 in New Mexico, in the presence of foreign leaders, and as was recommended by a group of scientists in the Franck Report. Such a display could have exerted sufficient pressure on the Japanese government, especially in conjunction with the changed surrender terms and a warning about Soviet entry, to precipitate Japanese surrender. In fact, seven of America’s eight five-star admirals and generals in 1945 said the bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both. Truman’s personal chief of staff Admiral William Leahy, who also chaired the meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the use of the atomic bombs put us on the moral level of the ”barbarians of the dark ages.” General Douglas MacArthur wrote that the Japanese would have “gladly” surrendered months earlier if we’d told them they could keep the emperor.

Keep reading

Shutting Down the War Machine

Right at this moment, we are witnessing an unprecedented shift of resources from domestic investments in the United States to the military-industrial complex (aka the war machine). The only comparable period in our history was the buildup to World War II, when the United States confronted a powerful adversary in Nazi Germany with designs to control not just Europe, but the world. The current buildup is breathtaking in scope and will certainly prove devastating in its impact — not just on this country’s foreign and domestic policies but also on the economic prospects of average Americans.

When, in 2023, my colleague Ben Freeman and I first conceived of our book, The Trillion Dollar War Machine, we viewed it in part as a cautionary tale about just how high the Pentagon budget might rise in the years to come (absent pushback from Congress and the taxpaying public). By the time our book came out in November 2025, however, the Pentagon budget had already topped the $1 trillion mark and, only recently, President Trump has proposed to instantly add another $500 billion to that already staggering figure and to do so in a single year’s time. And imagine this: such a proposed increase alone is higher than the total military budget of any other nation on Earth. Mind you, the current high levels of spending have already underwritten a provocative, unnecessary intervention in Venezuela and a region-wide war in the Middle East, and the larger costs of all this in human lives and damage to the global economy are guaranteed to shape the lives of the rest of us globally for years to come.

To add insult to injury, the Pentagon announced that it would seek a $200 billion supplemental appropriation to pay for its war on Iran, which has spread across the Middle East. That $200 billion would have been in addition to the $1.5 billion proposed for the Pentagon’s future budget. According to an analysis by Pentagon budget expert Stephen Semler, the Iran war, which started on February 28th with Israeli and U.S. air strikes on that country, cost the United States more than $28 billion just in its first two weeks. And to put that in perspective, $28 billion is more than three times the Trump administration’s proposed annual budgets for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency (at a time when the climate crisis and the need to head off future pandemics are essential to the health and security of all Americans). Worse yet, it’s all for a completely senseless war that should never have been started.

As President Trump alternates between engaging in negotiations to end the war and threatening to wipe Iran off the map — or even just walking away to bomb another day — there are reports that the supplemental budget request to pay for the war on Iran will shrink from the proposed $200 billion to $98 billion. And that $98 billion will include other things in addition to war costs, including disaster relief and aviation modernization.

Keep reading

Israel Deployed Iron Dome and Troops to Support UAE Defense Amid Iran Attacks — First Deployment Abroad

Israel quietly deployed its Iron Dome air defense system along with dozens of IDF troops to the United Arab Emirates in the early days of the Iran conflict, according to reporting, marking the first operational use of the system outside Israel and the United States as Tehran unleashed a sustained and intense missile and drone barrage against the Gulf state.

According to reports published Sunday by Axios and The Jerusalem Post, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the deployment early in the conflict following a call with UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, directing the Israel Defense Forces to send an Iron Dome battery, interceptors, and several dozen operators to help defend the country as Iran escalated its attacks across the region.

The move represents an unprecedented step in Israeli defense policy, with officials confirming it was the first time an Iron Dome system had been transferred abroad for active use. A senior Israeli official said the UAE became the first country outside Israel and the United States to deploy the system operationally, with another official noting it intercepted dozens of incoming threats.

Iran’s barrage on the UAE was among the most intense of the conflict, with more than 550 ballistic and cruise missiles and over 2,200 drones launched at the country — more than at any other nation, including Israel — with numerous strikes hitting civilian infrastructure, residential areas, and economic hubs in what analysts say reflects Tehran’s effort to pressure U.S.-aligned regional partners.

Keep reading

Military Disasters and the End of Empire

Writing more than 2,000 years ago, the Greek historian Plutarch gave us an eloquent description of what modern historians now call “micro-militarism.” When an imperial power like Athens then, or America now, is in decline, its leaders often react emotionally by mounting seemingly bold military strikes in hopes of regaining the imperial grandeur that’s slipping through their fingers. Instead of another of the great victories the empire won at its peak of power, however, such military misadventures only serve to accelerate the ongoing decline, erasing whatever aura of imperial majesty remains and revealing instead the moral rot deep inside the ruling elite.

There is mounting historical evidence that America is indeed an empire in steep decline, while President Donald Trump’s war of choice against Iran is becoming the sort of micro-military disaster that helped destroy successive empires over the past 2,500 years — from ancient Athens to medieval Portugal to modern Spain, Great Britain, and now the United States. And at the core of every such ill-fated war-making decision lay a problematic leader, often born into wealth and prestige, whose personal inadequacies reflected and ramified the many irrationalities that make imperial decline such a painful process.

During that demoralizing downward spiral, imperial armies, so lethal in an empire’s ascent, can err by plunging their countries into draining, even disastrous “micro-military” misadventures — psychologically compensatory efforts to salve the loss of imperial power by trying to occupy new territories or display awe-inspiring military might. Although such micro-militarism often chose targets that proved strategically unsustainable, the psychological pressures upon declining empires are so strong that they all too often gamble their prestige on just such misadventures. Not only did such disasters add financial pressures to a fading empire’s many troubles, but in a humiliating fashion, they also invariably exposed its eroding power while exacerbating the destabilizing impact of imperial decline in the capitals of empire (whether Athens, Lisbon, Madrid, London, or Washington, D.C.).

In our moment, when the bombs stop falling and the rubble is finally cleared from the streets of Tehran and Beirut, the impact on U.S. global power of such a de facto defeat will become all too clear — as alliances like NATO atrophy, American hegemony evaporates, legitimacy is lost, global disorder rises, and the world economy suffers.

Let me now turn from the disasters of the present imperial moment to the lessons of history to explore the sort of lasting damage that Donald Trump’s micro-military misadventure in the Middle East might be inflicting on this country’s declining imperium.

Keep reading

US “Being Humiliated” by Iran’s Leadership, German Chancellor Merz Says

A seemingly ever-widening rift between Europe and Trump’s America is emerging as the war with Iran drags on, exposing not only strategic confusion but growing skepticism among America’s closest allies.

What began as a show of force has increasingly come to resemble a costly stalemate—one that critics, of whom there is no shortage, argue lacks both clarity and direction. At the center of the latest criticism leveled at the direction of Trump is German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has sharply questioned his administration’s handling of the conflict.

Speaking publicly to students in Germany, Merz, who leads the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), warned that the United States appears to have entered the war without a viable endgame. “The Iranians are clearly stronger than expected and the Americans clearly have no truly convincing strategy,” he said.

“An entire nation [the United States] is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership, especially by these so-called Revolutionary Guards,” the German Chancellor said, adding that he “hopes that this ends as quickly as possible.”

Merz’s comments reflect a broader unease across Europe, where leaders are now grappling with the economic fallout of a conflict they did not initiate. Energy prices have surged, supply chains have tightened, and the costs are being passed directly to European taxpayers.

Additionally, such language signals a dramatic shift from earlier European support for the campaign. While some leaders initially aligned with Trump’s stated objectives, the prolonged conflict and lack of measurable progress have eroded that backing.

It’s worth noting that Merz was one of the liberal-globalist EU leaders that initially baked Trump’s moves in the Middle East. The disruption of the Strait of Hormuz has proven particularly damaging. As one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, its partial closure has driven oil prices above $100 per barrel, intensifying inflation across already fragile European economies.

Merz did not mince words about the consequences. The war, he said, is “costing us a great deal of money,” underscoring the growing frustration among European leaders who feel sidelined in decisions with global repercussions.

At the same time, diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict appear increasingly chaotic. Planned negotiations between American and Iranian officials have repeatedly stalled, including a high-profile meeting in Islamabad that was abruptly abandoned.

Keep reading

America: Land of the (Not Really) Free

Last week, President Donald Trump commemorated income tax payments being due by having DoorDash deliver food from McDonald’s to the White House. The delivery was intended to highlight the first year of tax-free tips. Removing tax on tips was part of the 2025 Big Beautiful Bill (BBB).

As the sponsor of the first No Tax on Tips legislation introduced in Congress, I was obviously pleased to see this change in tax laws included in the BBB. The bill also included other good tax changes such as removing tax on overtime and extending the 2017 tax cuts. Unfortunately, the bill also increased federal spending and debt.

Supporters of the income tax implicitly endorse the idea that our rights are gifts from government and, thus, can be revoked by government at the will of our rulers. Adoption of the income tax signified the abandonment of the belief that individuals have inalienable rights granted them by the Creator.

Therefore, those who believe in natural rights must reject income taxation. It is also a violation of the people’s rights when the central bank reduces the value of the dollar, and thus the people’s purchasing power, via the hidden inflation tax.

The income tax system’s rejection of natural rights is exemplified by withholding that gives government first claim on an individual’s earnings. The government then may return, via what it calls a refund, some of what was taken. However, a normal refund is when a business returns a customer’s payment because the customer is dissatisfied with the good or service he received, not when a thief returns some of what the thief stole.

Withholding was implemented during World War Two as a “temporary” wartime measure. Yet, it is still with us decades later.

Milton Friedman, as a young economist, played a role in the US government’s development of withholding. Of course, Friedman went on to become a leading advocate for free markets. He also redeemed himself for his work on withholding by becoming a prominent advocate for ending the military draft.

The draft is the worst example of how the government has rejected the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The draft gives government power to force young men (and possibly young women) to join the military and kill or be killed in a war. Contrary to the beliefs of some progressives, support for the draft is not justified by allowing individuals to choose between serving in the military or performing some other form of mandated “service.”

While the US does not have a military draft, the infrastructure for the draft remains in place via Selective Service registration. A provision in this year ‘s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows Selective Service to automatically register all men between the ages of 18 and 25. This makes it easier than ever for government to reinstate a draft.

Income taxes, along with the military draft and other types of mandated “service,” are incompatible with a free society and should be opposed by all who value liberty and peace. As Ronald Reagan said in a statement that could be modified to apply to income taxes, the draft “rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state…. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”

Keep reading

CIA Ran MK-ULTRA Experiments on Prisoners of War in U.S. Custody, Declassified Docs Confirm

Korean prisoners of war in the 1950s were subjected to early MK-ULTRA experiments while in American custody, according to recently declassified CIA documents which confirm these experiments for the first time.

The only reporting that previously referenced Koreans being used as guinea pigs for these experiments was journalist John Marks’s landmark 1979 book, The Search for the “Manchurian Candidate.” Using CIA documents, Marks traced the now-infamous MK-ULTRA project to its start, when it was known as Project Bluebird. In the book, Marks describes how, in October 1950, 25 unnamed North Korean POWs were chosen as the first test subjects to receive “advanced” interrogation techniques, with the overt goal of “controlling an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against such fundamental laws of nature as self-preservation.”

While MK-ULTRA is best known for its invasive experimentation — like LSD dosing and torture — the documents confirm Korean POWs were the unwitting subjects of less splashy attempts at mind control, like being subjected to polygraph tests, with plans for other invasive testing.

The declassified documents, which the National Security Archive released between December 2024 and April 2025, are available through a special collection titled “CIA and the Behavioral Sciences: Mind Control, Drug Experiments and MK-ULTRA.” The National Security Archive website states that the collection “brings together more than 1,200 essential records on one of the most infamous and abusive programs in CIA history.”

The first reference to “Project Bluebird” in the NSA’s collection is an office memorandum from April 5, 1950. Addressed to CIA Director Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, the document lays out the project’s goals, required training, and budget, all while emphasizing that knowledge of Project Bluebird “should be restricted to the absolute minimum number of persons.”

The memo includes detailed plans for interrogation teams trained to utilize the polygraph, various drugs, and hypnotism “for personality control purposes.” These teams were to be made up of three people: a doctor (ideally a psychiatrist), a hypnotist, and a polygraph technician. The memo clarifies that while the doctor and technician would need to undergo approximately five months of training, the Inspection and Security Staff’s own department hypnotist could be made available immediately. In a later memo from February 2, 1951, there are inquiries into acquiring six “hypospray” devices: experimental instruments designed to covertly inject sedatives through the skin via “jet injection.” There’s a request to investigate modification of a “tear gas pencil” and other “devices of unestablished action,” such as the “German ‘Scheintot’ [sic] (appearance of death) pistol.”

Keep reading

US and Israel Claimed to Be Fighting for Iranian Minorities — While Bombing Them

Iranians of all stripes have been affected by the U.S.-Israeli war on their country, and the civilian cost of the conflict has yet to be fully understood. The United Nations Development Programme has raised the alarm about the “development in reverse” pushing more than 32 million people back into poverty globally, and economists have warned that 10 to 12 million Iranians, representing nearly half of the country’s workforce, are now on the brink of unemployment.

But the effect of the U.S.-Israeli aggression on Iran’s religious minorities has received comparatively little attention. Beset by years of neglect and underrepresentation at home, faith groups are now coming to grips with the cruelty of war and the devastation it has inflicted on their vulnerable institutions and houses of worship.

In Tehran, U.S.-Israeli airstrikes damaged two major churches, St. Nicholas Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church of Saint Mary, drawing condemnation from Tehran’s Christian communities. Although there have not been many updates on the status of the Church of Saint Mary, St. Nicholas Church, which is a major Russian cultural site in Iran, was reportedly closed on Easter due to the extent of the damages.

One day before the U.S.-Iran ceasefire went into effect on April 8, a 68-year-old synagogue in the Iranian capital was damaged in airstrikes for which the Israeli military claimed responsibility. The Israeli military said it was trying to target a military commander living nearby and regretted the destruction, which it referred to as “collateral damage.”

The attack put further strain on Iranian Jews as they navigate the challenges of a war waged by the United States and Israel under the pretenses of bringing liberation to the country. Iranian Jewish politicians and community leaders have been vocal in criticizing the attacks targeting houses of worship and civilian sites.

Keep reading