No Sunglasses

Alternate blog for There Are No Sunglasses: therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com

Friday, May 29, 2026

The Permanent Bi-Partisan War Government

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

By John & Nisha Whitehead
The Rutherford Institute

“You want to defend the United States of America, then defend it with the tools it supplies you with—its Constitution. You ask for a mandate, General, from a ballot box. You don’t steal it after midnight, when the country has its back turned.”—Seven Days in May (1964)

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?

The president who boasts one moment of imminent peace and threatens the next to “finish the job”? The Pentagon officials who insist the war is going according to plan? The vice president who has reportedly questioned whether the Defense Department is giving the president the full picture? The intelligence agencies, defense contractors, war planners, foreign allies, billionaire donors, political handlers and unelected power brokers who operate behind the curtain?

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.

That war government—the military industrial complex, the intelligence apparatus, the surveillance state, the federal police bureaucracy, the defense contractors, the private-sector profiteers and the unelected functionaries who keep the machinery running—does not need tanks in the streets to take over.

It already has the budgets, the weapons, the secrecy, the technology, the classified briefings, the emergency powers, the corporate partners and the political class in its pocket.

All it needs is for the American people to keep believing the fiction that elections alone are enough to keep tyranny in check.

They are not.

The Constitution was supposed to keep power on a short leash. Congress was supposed to declare war, control the purse strings, restrain the executive and answer to the people. The president was supposed to execute the laws, not rule by decree, wage undeclared wars, or serve as front man for an empire. The courts were supposed to serve as a check against government abuse, not rubber-stamp the national security state’s worst excesses.

Instead, we have inherited a government of permanent war, permanent surveillance, permanent emergency, permanent secrecy and permanent power.

Call it the Deep State.

Call it the Police State.

Call it the Military Industrial Complex.

Call it the Techno-Corporate State.

Call it the Surveillance State.

Whatever name you give it, the result is the same: a government that keeps expanding no matter who occupies the White House, no matter which party controls Congress, and no matter what the people actually want.

This is bigger than Trump.

Trump may be reckless, transactional, vindictive, distracted, authoritarian in impulse and dangerously unfit for the powers he wields. But the machinery now surrounding him did not begin with him and will not end with him.

Every modern president has inherited the same war powers, the same secret agencies, the same emergency apparatus, the same surveillance systems, the same defense contractors, the same militarized police forces, and the same bipartisan addiction to power without accountability.

Trump didn’t create the permanent war government.

He inherited it, fed it, enlarged it, weaponized it and, like every president before him, became its salesman.

The Iran war is merely the latest test case.

We are told the president is in command. We are told the Pentagon has the situation under control. We are told American weapons stockpiles are strong, the strategy is working, victory is near, diplomacy is proceeding, and the next escalation—if it comes—will be necessary.

Yet the reporting suggests something far more troubling: confusion, competing narratives, disputed assessments, growing concerns about depleted missile stockpiles, and possible gaps between what military officials are saying publicly and what political leaders privately fear.

According to Reuters, Trump insists that the U.S. is still not satisfied with the terms of a possible Iran deal and is not considering easing sanctions. He also reportedly threatened to blow up Oman if they did not cooperate over the Strait of Hormuz.

The Associated Press reports that a new analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies warns the U.S. could need years to replenish key advanced weapons stockpiles depleted by the Iran war, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and Patriot and THAAD interceptors.

And The Atlantic reported that Vice President J.D. Vance has repeatedly questioned the Defense Department’s depiction of the Iran war and whether the Pentagon has understated the depletion of U.S. missile stockpiles.

Read between the lines.

If the president is not getting the full picture from his own Pentagon, then who is really making the decisions?

If the Pentagon is shaping the narrative to tell the president what he wants to hear, then what remains of civilian control?

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 premise is straightforward enough: With the Cold War at its height, President Jordan Lyman signs a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. General James Mattoon Scott, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes the treaty leaves the United States vulnerable. Convinced that the president is weak and the people are blind, Scott plots a military takeover of the government.

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.

It is the coup that occurs when Congress surrenders its war powers to the president.

It is the coup that occurs when presidents of both parties wage war without meaningful constitutional authorization.

It is the coup that occurs when intelligence agencies spy on the American people and then hide behind national security.

It is the coup that occurs when federal agencies arm themselves like military units.

It is the coup that occurs when local police are transformed into extensions of the military.

It is the coup that occurs when whistleblowers are punished, dissenters are surveilled, protesters are treated like enemies, and the public is told to trust whatever version of events the government chooses to release.

It is the coup that occurs when unelected bureaucrats, contractors, data brokers, intelligence analysts, defense executives and crisis managers exercise more practical control over government policy than the voters do.

This is how freedom disappears: not all at once, not in one dramatic seizure of power, but incrementally, bureaucratically, profitably and in the name of national security.

Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about this in 1961.

A five-star general who understood war better than most modern politicians ever will, Eisenhower cautioned Americans to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.” The danger, he warned, was that “misplaced power” would endanger liberty and democratic processes.

He was right.

The military industrial complex has become one of the most powerful governing forces in America.

It consumes trillions of dollars. It shapes foreign policy. It drives domestic policing. It fuels surveillance. It manufactures enemies. It feeds off fear. It rewards failure. It profits from war whether the wars are won, lost or simply kept going forever.

War is no longer merely a policy choice.

It is an economy.

It is a governing philosophy.

It is a way of life.

The permanent war government needs enemies the way a furnace needs fuel. If there are no enemies abroad, it finds them at home. If there is no declared war, it invents undeclared conflicts. If the public grows weary of one threat, it introduces another.

Terrorists. Extremists. Immigrants. Protesters. Hackers. Drug dealers. Foreign powers. Domestic radicals. Enemies of the people. Threats to democracy. Threats to order. Threats to national security.

The names change. The machinery remains the same.

Once the government convinces the public that it is surrounded by enemies, almost anything can be justified: surveillance, censorship, raids, checkpoints, databases, militarized policing, secret courts, indefinite detention, asset forfeiture, no-knock warrants, drone warfare, emergency powers and more war.

This is how a constitutional republic gets converted into a battlefield.

The battlefield is not just Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine or whatever foreign conflict is next on the docket.

The battlefield is also Main Street.

It is the protest zone. The airport. The school. The public square. The church. The campus. The internet. The courthouse. The traffic stop. The home.

The war comes home because the war machine must keep moving.

That is why local police now look like occupying armies. That is why federal agents are armed to the teeth. That is why surveillance cameras, drones, license plate readers, fusion centers, biometric databases, AI tracking systems and predictive policing programs have become routine features of American life.

The government has spent decades training Americans to accept the architecture of martial law as the price of safety.

First, it sells the public on the threat.

Then it sells the public on the solution.

Then it makes the solution permanent.

This is not a left-right problem.

Both parties built this.

Republicans and Democrats alike have funded the wars, renewed the surveillance powers, armed the police, expanded executive authority, protected intelligence agencies, rewarded defense contractors, and treated the Constitution as an inconvenience whenever fear could be used to silence dissent.

One president abuses power. The next one inherits it. The next one expands it. The next one normalizes it. The next one weaponizes it.

This is how emergency powers become everyday powers.

This is how temporary measures become permanent law.

This is how the president becomes a king in all but name.

And this is how the people become spectators in their own government.

The genius of Seven Days in May was that it understood the temptation of power. General Scott believed he was saving the country. He believed the people were too weak, too foolish or too uninformed to govern themselves. He believed the Constitution was expendable if national security demanded it.

That is always the excuse.

The tyrant always claims to be saving the country.

The general always claims to be protecting the people.

The bureaucrat always claims to be following procedure.

The president always claims to be acting in the national interest.

The police state always claims to be keeping us safe.

But the Constitution does not exist for easy times. It exists for moments of crisis, fear, panic, uncertainty and war. It exists precisely because government officials cannot be trusted to restrain themselves when power is on the line.

That is why the founders divided power.

That is why Congress was given the power to declare war.

That is why the Fourth Amendment restrains searches and seizures.

That is why the First Amendment protects speech, dissent, assembly and the press.

That is why due process exists.

That is why civilian control of the military matters.

That is why secret government is incompatible with self-government.

A people cannot remain free if they do not know what is being done in their name.

A people cannot control a government they are not allowed to see.

A people cannot restrain a war machine whose decisions are hidden behind classified briefings, private contracts, executive privilege and national security claims.

A people cannot be sovereign if the most consequential decisions—war, peace, surveillance, policing, spending and the use of force—are made by unelected power centers beyond their reach.

That is not a republic.

That is managed democracy with a military chain of command.

The Founders did not trust standing armies. They did not trust concentrated power. They did not trust executives who could wage war without the consent of the people’s representatives. They understood that liberty cannot survive when the machinery of force is allowed to operate without meaningful restraint.

Yet that is exactly where we are.

We have allowed the government to wage war without declarations of war.

We have allowed intelligence agencies to operate behind walls of secrecy.

We have allowed presidents to rule by executive order.

We have allowed Congress to become a spectator.

We have allowed the courts to defer to national security.

We have allowed police to become soldiers.

We have allowed corporations to profit from fear.

We have allowed unelected officials to make decisions that alter the course of the nation.

And then we act surprised when no one seems to know who is actually in charge.

The answer is as obvious as it is disturbing.

The permanent war government is in charge.

The machinery is in charge.

The system is in charge.

The president may bark orders, give speeches, post threats, stage photo ops, hold rallies, sign directives and claim victory. But behind him stands an entrenched apparatus of power that survives every election, outlasts every scandal, feeds off every crisis and answers to no one in any meaningful way.

This is the coup that does not end.

It is the coup that hides in budgets, briefings, contracts, classified memos, emergency powers, fusion centers, surveillance systems and military deployments.

It is the coup that does not need to overthrow the president because it can manage him, flatter him, manipulate him, brief him selectively, feed him talking points, and keep the machinery moving while he performs leadership for the cameras.

It is the coup that does not need to abolish Congress because Congress has already surrendered.

It is the coup that does not need to silence the courts because too many judges have already been trained to defer.

It is the coup that does not need to repeal the Constitution because the government has learned how to work around it.

This is the lesson of our age: the greatest threat to freedom is not always a madman seizing power in a single moment of crisis. Sometimes it is a bureaucracy that never sleeps, a war machine that never stops, a security state that never shrinks, and a political class that never says no.

So what do we do?

We stop pretending that elections alone will save us.

We stop confusing partisan victory with constitutional restoration.

We stop trusting presidents to police themselves.

We stop allowing Congress to hide behind fear, party loyalty and national security.

We stop accepting secret government as normal.

We stop treating war as inevitable.

We stop allowing the government to turn every crisis into a blank check for more power.

And we start insisting, relentlessly, that those who claim to defend the United States must defend it with the tools the Constitution supplies.

Not drones. Not secret memos. Not emergency decrees. Not militarized police. Not classified wars. Not surveillance dragnets. Not executive fiat. Not corporate profiteering. Not propaganda.

The Constitution.

If the government wants war, make Congress vote on it.

If the government wants surveillance, make it get a warrant.

If the government wants to police dissent, make it answer to the First Amendment.

If the government wants to spend trillions on war, make it explain why the American people are being robbed blind to enrich defense contractors.

If the government wants emergency powers, make it prove the emergency and surrender the powers when the crisis passes.

If the Pentagon wants to run foreign policy, remind it that in a constitutional republic, the military answers to civilian authority, and civilian authority answers to the people.

The hour is late.

As Seven Days in May warned, you don’t steal a mandate after midnight when the country has its back turned.

Unfortunately, it is long past midnight.

The question now is whether the American people will finally turn around and see what has been done in their name, with their money, against their freedoms, and under the cover of national security.

The permanent war government has had its turn.

It has given us endless wars, bankrupting debt, militarized police, mass surveillance, constitutional erosion, fear-driven politics, and a republic that increasingly resembles an occupied territory.

Enough.

If we are to remain free, the war machine must be brought back under constitutional control.

The generals, bureaucrats, contractors, intelligence agencies, police forces and presidents must all be reminded of the same truth: They do not own this country.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, they do not rule us.

They work for us.

And if they cannot defend America with the Constitution, then they are not defending America at all.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Thursday, May 28, 2026

Has President Trump Committed High Treason?

 

Has President Trump Committed High Treason?

 
 

Let’s examine the case.

In the oath of office taken in the swearing in of a president, the about-to-be-president swears allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and promises to defend it against enemies at home and abroad. In other words, enemies of the Constitution are enemies of the United States. (Today the Constitution’s enemies includes university law schools in the United States.)

If you asked what is the United States, some would say it is an idea; others would say it is a geographical territory. But these definitions apply to all countries and thus define none. The correct answer is that the United States is the Constitution.

The Constitution defines the form of government, the powers of the various branches, the distribution of powers between state governments and the federal government, the rights of citizens and the protection of those rights, and it defines the process of changing the Constitution, that is, of changing the United States. Without the Constitution the United States would be a different country.

It is not an election that makes a person the president. It is the person’s vow to defend the United States by defending the Constitution. If an elected president refused the vow at the swearing in ceremony, he could not be confirmed in office as president. When a president-to-be swears an oath to the Constitution he swears an oath to the United States.

The most important parts of the Constitution are the Amendments, the Bill of Rights that had to be incorporated into the Constitution in order to gain its acceptance by all of the founding states. The Bill of Rights protects the citizens from government limiting their rights and committing violence or retribution against them for actions protected by the Constitution.

The principle right is free speech. It is the First Amendment, because without free speech it is impossible for citizens to hold government accountable for violation of the other protections from, and limits on, government power.

Trump’s affinity for Zionist Israel has led him into an act that violates his oath of office and possibly caused him to commit high treason against the United States.

Trump has created by executive order what in effect is a Sedition Act for Israel that prohibits United States citizens from using their First Amendment right to criticize Israel for the genocide of Palestine, the rape and torture of Palestinian prisoners, the destruction of Palestinian homes, villages, and olive groves by Israeli settlers who blatantly steal Palestinian land, assassinations of foreign leaders, undue influence over the U.S. legislative and executive branches, state governments, media, finance, and education, and wars of aggression against Middle Eastern countries. U.S. critics of Israel are not even permitted to complain about the Jewish Anti-defamation League’s slander, libel and defamation of them. For an American to complain of being defamed by Zionists is to risk punishment for anti-semitism.

To state it plainly, Trump and his acting attorney general have given priority to protecting Israel, a foreign government, over the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. Clearly, this means that Trump and his accommodating acting attorney general are serving a foreign interest by suspending without any right or authority to do so, the First Amendment rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

This puts Trump at odds with his vow to protect the U.S. Constitution and invalidates his swearing-in as president of the United States. Trump has issued an edict that his obliging attorney general has accepted that subordinates the U.S. Constitution to Israel.

On May 19, the acting Attorney General of the United States issued this statement:

“President Trump has made clear that this administration will not tolerate antisemitism [defined as any criticism of Israel and Jews], and the Department of Justice is committed to implement that directive. This national tour is an important step in ensuring communities across the country know the federal government stands ready to work with them to confront antisemitic threats, protect public safety, and uphold civil rights.”

Notice that according to Trump’s attorney general “upholding civil rights” means deep-sixing the First Amendment that protects U. S. Citizens’ free speach rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

As Trump and his attorney general have come out against the First Amendment, they have come out against the US Constiution and, thereby, against the United States. In other words, both seem to be guilty of high treason.

For Trump and his attorney general to rule for Israel against American citizen’s First Amendment rights and the US Constitution that protects these rights calls into question who Trump and his attorney general represent.

It seems certain the President Trump’s willingness to sacrifice the U.S. Constitution to protecting Israel from words of criticism indicates that he has committed high treason in order to serve foreign interests, which would seem to make Trump an enemy of the U.S. Constitution and thereby an enemy of the United States.

If my reasoning is correct, why shouldn’t President Trump be arrested and put on trial for high treason against the United States?

Why did not Trump’s acting attorney general, who happens to be Trump’s personal defense attorney, warn Trump that he was stepping onto treasonous ground? Is a person who aids and abets the president in the possible commission of high treason fit to be attorney general of the United States?

 

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week’s first outside columnist, columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service, contributor to the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times, and columnist for the main French and Italian newspapers, and for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles. He served in numerous academic appointments in US universities and was appointed to the William E. Simon Chair for Political Economy at Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic and International Studies where his colleagues were Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, James R. Schlesinger (one of his former professors), and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Thomas Moorer. His article, “How the Law Was Lost,” was published in the January 1999 Cardozo Law Review.

Americans Worship War, Peace Has Never Had A Chance

[There is no DUTY to fight wars for the empire!]

America’s Perpetual War

Who are the Beneficiaries of American wars?

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung
Global Research

 

Introduction

Former American President Jimmy Carter said in 2018 that in America, there were 226 years of wars since its independence which took place 242 years ago thus leaving only 16 years of peace.

Since WWII, there were 32 American military conflicts involving dozens of countries. Some of these military conflicts have lasted for over twenty years and some others are still continuing.

In other words, the U.S. is a country of perpetual war. War is terribly destructive human activity. Millions of human beings have been sacrificed. Tens of trillions of dollars worth of housing, school, factories, hospitals and other infrastructure facilities have been destroyed in the countries which have been the target of American military attacks.

The perpetual war has destroyed the very foundation of freedom and democracy; it has prevented healthy and equitable economic development of the world; it has led to the violation of human rights; it has ruined traditional values of many countries and, above all, it has caused lasting human suffering.

America’s multi-trillion dollar perpetual war has denied and deprived millions of Americans of decent income, adequate housing, needed foods, necessary health care, safety on the street, reliable infrastructure facilities, essential education and other goods and services needed for descent living.

Before I go any further, I would like to quote the historical statement of President Dwight Eisenhower.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of children. (President Dwight Eisenhower address to the North American Society of News editors, April 16, 1953)

In this paper, I am asking the following six questions:

  • How many wars has the U.S. undertaken since WWII?
  • How are the American wars organized?
  • What is the purpose of the American wars?
  • Who are the beneficiaries of the American wars?
  • What are the negative impacts of the American wars?
  • Will the American wars continue?

How many wars has the U.S. undertaken since WWII?

There are undoubtedly several ways of defining war. In this paper, I define war in terms of American military interventions. Defined thus, I have counted 32 wars undertaken by the U.S. since WWII.

I have classified these wars in terms of the following categories:

  • invasion (23 cases),
  • “civil war” (7 cases), and
  • multi-target war (2),

which gives 32 wars that took place since the WWII, in the course of the so-called “post war era”.

There are reasons to believe that there are still many undeclared military interventions conducted by war contractors and Special Operation Forces units spread in 1,000 bases in 191 countries. The following shows the list of American wars.

Invasions,

  • Korean War (1950-1953),
  • Vietnam War (1955-1975);
  • Cuban,Bay of Pigs (1961),
  • Lebanon (1982-1984),
  • Grenada (1983),
  • Libya bombing (1984),
  • Tanker War-Persian Gulf  (1984-1987),
  • Panama (1989-1990),
  • Gulf War (1989-1991),
  • Iraq War (1991-1993),
  • Bosnia War (1992-1995),
  • Haiti (1994-1999),
  • Kosovo (1998-1999),
  • Afghanistan (2001-2021),
  • Yemen (2002-present),
  • Iraq (2003-2011),
  • Pakistan (2004-2018),
  • Somalia (2007-present)
  • Libya (2011),
  • Niger (2013-present)
  • Iraq (2014-2021),
  • Syria (2014-present),
  • Libya (2015-2019).
  • [Ukraine, yet to be categorized]

Civil Wars:

Indo-China (1959-1975),

Indonesia (1958-1961)

Lebanon (1958),

Dominican Republic (1968-1966),

Korea DMZ (1966-1969),

Cambodia (1967-1975)

Somalia (1991-present).

Multi-target wars:

Operation Ocean Shield: location, Indian- Ocean (2008-2016), Operation Observant Compass: location, Uganda and Central Africa (2011-20

How are the American Wars Organized?

To understand the nature and the implication of the perpetual war in the U.S., it is necessary to introduce the concept of American Pro-War Community (APWC).

In literature and media, we use the notion of military-industrial complex (MIC) to describe the vast system of perpetual U.S. wars. But, actually, the system of perpetual war involves many more individuals and organizations than in the MIC.

The APWC is a tightly knit community promoting its interests at the expense of the wellbeing of ordinary Americans and the interests of the people of the target countries. It is so well organized and so well rooted and so powerful that it is quasi impossible to dissolve it.

The AWPC’s core group comprises the war corporations and the federal government led by the Pentagon, the Congress, the Senate and other government agencies.

There are two supporting groups comprising all sorts of institutions and organizations.

There is the group supporting the supply of war goods and services.

Then, there is the group supporting the creation of demand for war goods and services.

The efficiency of the whole system of producing and selling war goods and services depends on how the core group and the supporting groups can work in harmony together to attain the objectives of wars, namely, the maximization of profit and the intra-APWC sharing of the profit.

Supply of War Goods and Services

The supply of war goods and services is assured by war corporations which produce weapons, building contractors which build all sorts of buildings and manage them, catering services companies that provide foods and drinks for the GIs, information firms which offer information needed for wars and even the academics that offers ideas and technologies.

In the U.S. 40 major war corporations have annual sales of almost $ 600 billion.

The following table shows the importance of the five leading war corporations in U.S.

Table 1. Five major War Corporations: Annual Sales ($ billion) 2022 and Growth (recent years: %)

Note: LM (Lockheed Martin), NG (Northrop Grumman); GD (General Dynamics) Source

The combined annual sale of the five leading firms in 2022 was as much as $ 241.8 billion of which $183.3 billon was for the sale of military goods and services, or 75.8% of the total sale.

The supply of war goods and services relies on the extensive production chain involving foreign and domestic providers of raw materials and intermediary products. In addition, the academics and information firms offer information, technology and other services needed for the production of weapons.

The following is a list of the well known universities which are deeply involved in American wars. Each one of these universities produces, for the war industry, a variety of war products and services.

In this paper, for each academic institution, just one typical product or service is mentioned.

No less than 70% of university research projects are funded by the Pentagon:

  • The Boston College helps the Air Force
  • The University of Massachusetts Lowell develops mono-technology for the Army.
  • Tufts University improves of soldiers cognitive and physical performance
  • MIT is producing so many war goods ns services that it is known as a “war corporation.”
  • Columbia University and Brown University develops, for DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Project Agency), the neural engineering system
  • Princeton University produces hardware for design and verification of open-source integrated circuit
  • Dartmouth University sells machine learning
  • Pennsylvania University develops artificial intelligence.
  • Stanford University develops technology for chemical warfare and so many other war goods and service that it is considered to be in partnership with war corporations
  • Harvard University develops educational materials for the war and it is the main source providing human resources to the war industries. By the way, it produced the napalm bomb widely used in the Korean War, Vietnamese War and other wars
  • John Hopkins University makes tools needed for the evaluation of alternative offensive capability needed for battles in air sea, cyberspace

The sad story is that American universities depend on war money so much that they are losing their original mission.

Christian Sorensen (Understanding the War Industry, Clarity Press 2022) has something to say about this problem. He seems to think that universities are neglecting their original mission of producing and diffusing truth.

“But its intricate ties to the War Department show the university’s true colour carrying more about government funding than the nobility of academia.” (Sorenson: p.221)

By the way, I have found many useful information, data and ideas in Sorensen’s book, which is surely a significant addition to the critical literature of perpetual wars. 

The information-technology corporations are also actively participating in the American wars. In fact, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google provide, for the military, clout computing which facilitates the reduction of human and material cost of wars.

Demand for War Products and Services

What distinguishes the war economy from the peace economy is the amazing fact that the supply generates the demand.

In the American war economy, the final demand for war goods and services is determined by the Pentagon (the Department of Defence) and some foreign countries.

However, the Pentagon does not have all the information needed to estimate the demand for war so that it relies on the information provided by the war corporations.

Therefore, the war corporations which are supplier of war goods and services have the amazing role of determining the demand.

In this way, in the market of war goods and services, the supply determines the demand.

This is the root of perpetual nature of American wars and the making of profit going to the APWC.

Now, to have war, one has to have enemies. But, the war corporations do not have the research capacity to find real enemies or produce fabricated enemies. The role of finding or fabricating enemies goes to the think tanks which are lavishly funded by the war corporations.

When the think tanks find or manufacture enemies, new wars or the continuation of old wars are justified.

Now, on the other hand, the pressure groups put pressure on law makers and policy makers to recognize the identities of enemies produced by the think tanks; this is done through lobbying (bribes giving). 

As for the media, they have the role of preparing the mind and the souls of Americans to accept the monstrous defence budget without being aware of the destructive consequences of the perpetual wars.

It goes without saying that both the pressure groups and the media are funded by the war corporations.

The demand for war goods and services created by these pro-war individuals and organizations is translated into the annual defence budget of the U.S amounting, in 2023, to as much as $886 billion.

Imagine this. Washington’s 2023 defence budget is 50% of South Korea’s 2023 GDP of $1.8 trillion. The American defence budget is 40 % of the global defence budget of $ 2.2 trillion.

The big five: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics gets as much as $150 billion out of the defence budget.

Read the Whole Article

 

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

The Real Reason For Netanyahu's Secret Wartime Trip To UAE...Mohammad Dahlan

[Emirate royals and Mossad are all set to retry the loony "W" Bush policy, promoted by his favorite Little terror whore, Mohammad Dahlan, a policy which has already fallen flat multiple times...apparently Trump's foreign goons want Dahlan to carry-out his signature move of "false flag terrorism" in the war zone. His notoriety derives from his historical record of hiring of ISIS/Daesh terrorists for Israel with money from Gulf Royals to create false flag attacks to be pinned on Iran or its allies, for the purpose of justifying massive IDF/USAF counterattacks [SEE: The Gaza Bombshell--March 3, 2008]. 

Dahlan is an international terrorist, working for the empire of terrorists.--ed.]

Bush’s Pawn In Palestine and the Long Arm of the Law–Mohammad Dahlan Facing Murder Charges--

Mohammed Dahlan, George Bush’s “Whore,” Now He’s Selling His Ass To the Saudis--

Saudi/Israeli Moves Reveal Old Plan to Re-plant the US Hitman Dahlan Over Gaza--

U.A.E., Mohammed Dahlan and Zionist Terrorist Conspiracies Called “DAESH”--

W. Bush’s Evil Little Whore, Mohammed Dahlan, Implicated In Saudi Cover-Up of Khashoggi Murder--

Shin Bet chief met with former Gaza strongman Mohammed Dahlan in UAE, report says

Dahlan, linked to terror attacks in Gaza during Second Intifada, seen as leading candidate to run post-Hamas Gaza; he lives in UAE exile, where he amassed a fortune brokering deals

 
Shin Bet chief David Zini, who visited the United Arab Emirates during the ceasefire with Iran, met there with Mohammed Dahlan, formerly one of the heads of preventive security in the Gaza Strip and long considered Mahmoud Abbas’ main rival and a candidate to lead Gaza after Hamas, regional and Israeli sources told public broadcaster Kan Bet.
 
The Shin Bet said in response: “We do not comment on the service chief’s schedule.”
The Shin Bet said in response: “We do not comment on the service chief’s schedule.”

דחלאן וזיני

Shin Bet head David Zini and Mohammed Dahlan
(Photos: Reuters, Shilo Shalom)
 
Two years ago, The Wall Street Journal reported that Dahlan’s name had come up as part of contacts for a comprehensive deal between Israel and Hamas, as someone who could be responsible, at least temporarily, for leading the Strip. According to that report, officials in Israel, the United States and the Arab mediating countries supported the idea, and Hamas signaled it would agree to accept Dahlan as an interim solution to end the war. The initiative did not materialize, and Dahlan has remained in the UAE.
 
Dahlan, 64, was among the founders of Fatah’s youth movement. In 1987, he was arrested over his role in the first intifada and deported to Jordan. In 1994, with the advancement of the Oslo Accords, he returned to Gaza and was later appointed head of the Preventive Security Service. He resigned from the post in 2002 and was later appointed, among other roles, interior minister and civil affairs minister, handling the disengagement portfolio.
 
During the second intifada, intelligence officials linked Dahlan to several terror attacks in Gaza, including the 2000 attack on a children’s bus in which two residents of Kfar Darom were murdered.
 
When Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, Dahlan and his forces were defeated, and he left Gaza with many of his supporters. In 2011, Dahlan was expelled from Fatah following claims that he had worked with a group of senior organization officials to oust Abbas. He went into exile in the UAE, where he became close to Abu Dhabi ruler and UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed, eventually becoming his adviser.
 
Dahlan has since amassed tens of millions of dollars from brokering deals, at least some of which, according to past claims, involved Israeli security officials. In January 2024, he criticized Hamas’ October 7 terror attack, saying it had brought total destruction to the Strip.
 
“It may lead to hope for coexistence between the two peoples or open the gate to a new hell and a spiral of violence and revenge,” he said at the time, urging Israel to extend a hand for peace rather than revenge.
The Wall Street Journal described him then as a “rare” Palestinian leader who operates independently of both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority — in a way that could theoretically allow Israel to cooperate with him. According to the 2024 report, in the first months after the war began, Dahlan shuttled between the UAE and Egypt, advising the leaders of both countries.
 
 

 

Sunday, May 24, 2026

AIPAC-Owned Senators Introduce Bill To Criminalize Criticism of Israel or Jewish Power


Prominent Jewish Americans Sign Statement Denouncing AIPAC’s Electoral Influence

S.4576 - A bill to strengthen Federal efforts to counter antisemitism in the United States and protect the Jewish community.

[The bill has so far, only been introduced in the Senate, but no details of the legislation are offered to the public.  the following text comes from the highly toxic JEWISH ANTI-DEFAMATION COMMITTEE.]

The bipartisan legislation responds to the growing threat that antisemitism poses not only to the Jewish community, but also to the core values of American democracy.

    • Bolsters protections for Jewish students by:
      • establishing a dedicated antisemitism coordinator within the U.S. Department of Education – ensuring students know their rights and schools their responsibilities under Title VI,
      • improving Title VI enforcement and processing of discrimination complaints, and
      • creating an online “clearinghouse” for school safety and civil rights best practices.
    • Requires federally funded K‑12 schools and colleges to address antisemitism and other forms of discrimination by:
      • designating Title VI coordinators,
      • maintaining clear, well-publicized nondiscrimination policies and grievance procedures to investigate and resolve complaints, and
      • providing support for those who report discrimination.
    • Expands and reforms the Nonprofit Security Grant Program by:
      • increasing authorized funding to $1 billion annually,
      • improving grant administration and support for applicants,
      • broadening allowable uses to support a wider range of security needs, and
      • strengthening congressional oversight to improve transparency, accountability, and fair distribution of funds.
    • Strengthens federal monitoring of antisemitic extremism by requiring annual coordinated assessments – on both domestic and transnational antisemitic violent extremist threats – from the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and National Counterterrorism Center.
    • Increases transparency and accountability for online platforms by requiring large social media platforms to regularly report on:
      • content moderation practices,
      • the sharing and amplification of antisemitic content,
      • inauthentic user accounts, and
      • real-world impact of online hate speech on the U.S. Jewish community

 

Thursday, May 21, 2026

Cool Headed Gulf Royal Impedes Trump's Zionist Steamroller

 

Iran War Puts Saudi Arabia at Odds With Growing Israel-UAE Axis

This is how Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman succeeded

 

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not allow Iran to divide the brotherly Gulf states. (SPA)
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not allow Iran to divide the brotherly Gulf states. (SPA)

Since the US-Israeli war on Iran erupted on Feb. 28, discordant voices in our region and in Western media have grown louder, questioning Saudi Arabia’s position on a conflict the Kingdom had initially worked hard to prevent, and then made intensive efforts to stop and resolve diplomatically.

It did so without noise, theatrics, grandstanding, or bluster, seeking instead to pull the region out of this bloody conflict.

This has been the hallmark of the Kingdom’s leadership since the late King Abdulaziz founded the state. The leadership has long embraced the principle that actions matter more than words. While the flies of social media buzzed and shouted, the Kingdom was measured, patient, and active. While the cheerleaders beat their drums, the Kingdom managed affairs carefully and weighed its options. The evidence is before us.

When Iran and others tried to drag the Kingdom into the furnace of destruction, our leadership chose to endure the pains caused by a neighbor in order to protect the lives and property of its citizens. Had the Kingdom wanted, and it is capable of doing so, to respond in kind to Iran by destroying Iranian facilities and interests, the outcome could have been the destruction of Saudi oil facilities and desalination plants along the Arabian Gulf coast, and even deep inside the Kingdom.

Had the Israeli plan to ignite war between us and Iran succeeded, the region would have been plunged into ruin and destruction. Thousands of our sons and daughters would have been lost in a battle in which we had no stake. Israel would have succeeded in imposing its will on the region and remained the only actor in our surroundings.

Through the wisdom and foresight of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Kingdom avoided the horrors of war and its devastating repercussions. Indeed, together with Pakistan, it is now extinguishing the fire of fighting, helping prevent escalation, and giving advocates of peace hope that they can feel reassured about the lives of their loved ones and the safety of their interests.

When Iran and others tried to drag the Kingdom into the furnace of destruction, our leadership chose to endure the pains caused by a neighbor in order to protect the lives and property of its citizens.

Prince Turki Al-Faisal

As for the advocates of war, they continue in their arrogance and cawing, perhaps unaware that the rug has been pulled from under their feet.

The crown prince did not allow Iran to divide the brotherly Gulf states. He supported and stood in solidarity with all Gulf leaders, and placed the Kingdom’s trade and financing routes, through its roads, airports and ports, at the service of them and their peoples.

He also affirmed to all that their security is the Kingdom’s security, and that the Kingdom will support every step they take to preserve their security and stability.

The Kingdom will always remain true to its pact with its brothers.

This is how affairs are managed, and this is how foresight works. With Allah’s blessing, our caravan moves forward. Let the dogs bark at the top of their voices, and let our enemies bite their fingers in rage.

As the late Prince Badr bin Abdul Mohsen said: And if the envious speak of you, we never paid heed to the noise of their envy.

  • Prince Turki Al-Faisal is the former director-general of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency and a former ambassador. He is also the founder and Trustee of the King Faisal Foundation and Chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies.

Announcing the End of THEREARENOSUNGLASSES

Wordpress caves to political pressure over last post on NYT Hasbara fight---

   "ISRAEL LOBBY Loses First Major Hasbara Battle, NYT Stands By Report On K9-Rape of Palestinian Prisoners" 

 



Tuesday, May 19, 2026

ISRAEL LOBBY Loses First Major Hasbara Battle, NYT Stands By Report On K9-Rape of Palestinian Prisoners

[The Telling of Terrible Truths IS NOT A "Blood Libel"] 

Pro-Israel Pressure Campaign Against NYT Crashes and Burns

If Americans Knew

 

Pro-Israel Pressure Campaign Against NYT Crashes and Burns

 

SCREENSHOT FROM AN ISRAELI CHANNEL 12 REPORT ON THE SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RAPE OF A PALESTINIAN PRISONER AT SDE TEIMAN PRISON. ((SCREENSHOT: CHANNEL 12))

Even with this story coming more than a year after a United Nations report called out Israel for “systematically” subjecting Palestinians to “sexualized torture,” it was met with apoplectic – though predictable – rage from the Israeli government and a bevy of prominent pro-Israel figures and writers.

By Justin Baragona, reposted from Zeteo, May 13, 2026

Something very interesting happened this week. A massive pro-Israel pressure campaign looking to shame the New York Times into retracting a well-sourced story critical of Israel’s violence against Palestinians, including sexual abuse, fell flat on its face.

Nick Kristof, a longtime and respected columnist for the Timespenned an absolutely harrowing account this week of Palestinians being subjected to unspeakably horrific sexual abuse and rape by Israeli soldiers, settlers, and prison guards, relying on the first-hand testimony of 14 victims – many of whom were on the record.

Kristof, who traveled to the occupied West Bank to interview his subjects, argued in the piece that “whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape.” Noting that Israeli officials and American politicians decried the sexual violence allegedly committed by Hamas during the October 7 attacks, Kristof rightly pointed out that the abuse inflicted on Palestinian men and women by Israel “persists because of silence, indifference and the failure” of political leaders to condemn it.

Besides leaning on the personal stories of the victims he interviewed, many of which he corroborated with other witnesses and victims, Kristof also cited a number of surveysreports, and studies on the sexual violence that has been inflicted on Palestinian prisoners during the Gaza war.

Still, even with this story coming more than a year after a United Nations report called out Israel for “systematically” subjecting Palestinians to “sexualized torture,” Kristof’s story was met with apoplectic – though predictable – rage from the Israeli government and a bevy of prominent pro-Israel figures and writers.

“Today, the @nytimes chose to publish one of the worst blood libels ever to appear in the modern press. In an unfathomable inversion of reality, and through an endless stream of baseless lies, propagandist Nicholas Kristof turns the victim into the accused,” the Israel Foreign Ministry tweeted.

Complaining that the story was “part of a false and well-orchestrated anti-Israel campaign,” the Foreign Ministry accused the Times of “deliberately” timing the publication of the piece to counter a new Israeli report detailing the “systematic” sexual violence during Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack. (The lead author of that report, which has not been independently verified, has seen her credibility challenged multiple times on previous investigations into claims of systematic sexual violence by Hamas on October 7.)

Other pro-Israeli accounts, meanwhile, tried to discredit the report by dismissing Kristof’s sources as “Hamas-linked,” “anti-Israel,” or “anti-Zionist.” And former US special envoy for combating antisemitism Deborah Lipstadt went so far as to echo calls for the Times editors to face Nuremberg-style punishment.

Conservative commentator Michelle Tandler, in a moment that was beyond parody, insisted that there wasn’t a “single shred of evidence” in the piece, “other than the testimonies of 14 people.” Peter Savodnik – a senior editor at Bari Weiss’s right-wing pro-Israel blog The Free Press – fumed that the story’s sources “hate Israel” and that the piece is a “well laundered bit of Hamas propaganda that Kristof and the Times will ultimately regret.”

Additionally, many specifically took aim at a claim made by a Gaza journalist to Kristof – who cited other public reports and accounts of similar incidents – that Israeli guards used a dog to rape him, stating it was not only physically impossible but that it was “antisemitic” and amounted to “libel” against Israel.

Kristof, for his part, pointed out on Tuesday that skeptics “who say that canine rape is impossible, despite the many Palestinians who have described it, I’d note that at least three different medical journal articles discuss rectal injuries in humans from anal penetration by dogs.”

Amid the outcry from the pro-Israeli crowd at the New York Times – the same paper, mind you, that published the highly disputed “Screams Without Words” investigative piece about Hamas “weaponizing” sexual violence on October 7 – former MSNBC anchor David Shuster jumped into the fray with a bombshell claim.

“Hearing from longtime friends @nytimes there are already discussions, including up the masthead, about retracting @NickKristof column. Issues with source credibility and lack of evidence. No indications the Kristof sourcing mistakes were deliberate. Still problematic,” he tweeted on Monday night.

Shuster, who has made wild allegations before that were later debunked, added that there were “other sourcing/credibility issues as well” but that the “bigger debate, I’m told, is whether an op-ed should be retracted given the nature of opinion writing v. news reporting.”

Several sources I spoke to at the New York Times, however, told me they were completely unaware of any conversations among top editors about whether to take action on Kristof’s column, including a possible retraction. “It’s giving ‘hipster coffee shop,’” one NYT reporter snarked to me.

Kristof, who also explained online why his deeply reported piece ran in the paper’s opinion section, responded to Shuster’s claims by flatly stating they were “completely untrue.” A short time later on Tuesday afternoon, NYT spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander issued a statement rebutting Shuster while fully backing Kristof.

 

Shuster responded to a request for comment by sharing two tweets he sent on Tuesday evening that largely focused on the dog rape claims in the piece while sidestepping his allegations that editors had discussed retracting the story.

What really stands out more than anything, though, is the lack of impact the over-the-top cries of “blood libel” from the Israeli government and its acolytes is having on the NYT – the same paper which repeatedly stood by the highly problematic “Screams Without Words” piece, which Zeteo’s Fatima Bhutto called a “piece of unbridled Israeli propaganda.” More than 50 journalism professors raised several concerns over the “Screams Without Words” piece in a letter at the time and called on the paper to “immediately commission a group of journalism experts to conduct a thorough and full independent review of the reporting, editing and publishing processes for this story and release a report of the findings.”

Could we finally be seeing a shift in the legacy media landscape, where Israel doesn’t automatically get deferential treatment, and outlets don’t immediately shirk in the face of groundless accusations of antisemitism?

It’s likely too soon to tell with the Times, which has repeatedly dehumanized Palestinians, shown deferential treatment to Israeli sources and officials, and whitewashed Israeli crimes against Palestinian civilians. But the paper’s reaction to this latest outrage cycle is at least a good start.


Justin Baragona is Zeteo’s media columnist. He is a former senior media reporter for The Daily Beast & a correspondent for Mediaite.

Monday, April 27, 2026

Netanyahu's Apparent Domination of American Govt Confirms That Jewish "Money Power" Is No Myth

Trump and most of Congress are openly and obviously subservient to Israel and its Jewish billionaire lobbyists.  Beginning with the open defense of genocide in Palestine, Israeli apologists have exposed the depth of  Israel's war on American anti-Zionism, in a multi-front campaign to limit free speech, censor any criticism of the Zionist state, even going so far as to pass laws against it.  Israel-friendly Jewish billionaires have embarked on a campaign to buy major American media, even many Internet news sources. 
Open Israeli/Jewish efforts to control US society seem to validate "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as fact, not fiction. Jewish "Hasbara" policy, which is also US Hasbara policy, has strove for decades to paint every anti-Zionist American as "anti-Semitic", for daring to point-out the truth about the coercive power of "Jewish Money" upon our electoral system (as demonstrated by the "Israeli Lobby").  To point-out the obvious truth about the power of Jewish lobbists to dominate the efforts of both Congressmen and Presidents is described as a "blood libel" and dismissed as a  "CANARD."

canard: a false or unfounded report or story

At the dawn of the 20th century, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion took hold of the Western imagination, codifying generations of stereotypes and canards about Jews controlling global events and packaging them in easy-to-read pamphlets. Mike Rothschild, Big Think, 31 Mar. 2026

This canard has been repeatedly debunked by historians and repeatedly invoked by Owens. Yair Rosenberg, The Atlantic, 13 Feb. 2026

The US Continues to Grovel to Israel, Doesn’t That Demolish the “Canard” About Jewish/Israeli Domination?

NY Times Fails To Debunk “Canard” of Jewish Money Dominating Congress, Because It Is the Cold Truth

MOSSAD Caught Trying To Overthrow Yet Another Government! I Know, Another “Canard.”

“Jewish Power” In the US Is Very Real, But To Say So Is “Anti-Semitic”

[The ongoing revelations about the "Epstein Files" should convince anyone of the validity of ant-Zionist efforts to expose and remove Mossad tampering with our electoral process.  Epstein and his Mossad-linked "honeypot" network for blackmailing tainted US officials, was a tool to force compliance with the will of Netanyahu and co., an effort to enforce the Protocols.]

The Protocols Of Zion

Goyim (cattle) are mentally inferior to Jews and can't run their nations properly. For their sake and ours, we need to abolish their governments and replace them with a single government. This will take a long time and involve much bloodshed, but it's for a good cause. Here's what we'll need to do:

* Place our agents and helpers everywhere
* Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans
* Start fights between different races, classes and religions
* Use bribery, threats and blackmail to get our way
* Use Freemasonic Lodges to attract potential public officials
* Appeal to successful people's egos
* Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail
* Replace royal rule with socialist rule, then communism, then despotism
* Abolish all rights and freedoms, except the right of force by us
* Sacrifice people (including Jews sometimes) when necessary
* Eliminate religion; replace it with science and materialism
* Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect
* Rewrite history to our benefit
* Create entertaining distractions
* Corrupt minds with filth and perversion
* Encourage people to spy on one another
* Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor
* Take possession of all wealth, property and (especially) gold
* Use gold to manipulate the markets, cause depressions etc.
* Introduce a progressive tax on wealth
* Replace sound investment with speculation
* Make long-term interest-bearing loans to governments
* Give bad advice to governments and everyone else

 

Rubio Admits American Surrender To, and Backing Of, Netanyahu Plan To Force Iranian Retaliation Against US Interests

On February 28, the United States Armed Forces launched Operation Epic Fury with a set of clear objectives: to “[d]estroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy [Iran’s] navy and other security infrastructure,” and, finally, ensure that Iran “will never have nuclear weapons.”

Epic Fury is only the latest round of an ongoing international armed conflict with Iran. As the United States has explained in multiple letters to the U.N. Security Council, including most recently on March 10, the United States is engaged in this conflict at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally, as well as in the exercise of the United States’ own inherent right of self-defense.

Critics have argued that the United States’s combat operations are inconsistent with the UN Charter. In truth, the United States is acting well within the recognized contours of international law relating to the use of force and self-defense. This legal assessment is grounded in facts demonstrating Iran’s malign aggression over decades, particularly in Iran’s escalatory attacks against the United States, Israel, and others in the region for years, which precipitated an international armed conflict that predated U.S. combat operations on February 28 and that continues to this day.

I. Iran’s Attacks on the United States, Israel, and Others

Any serious legal assessment of U.S. combat activities must be anchored in the relevant material facts. Beginning with its founding in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has regularly attacked the United States, its interests, and its allies, including but not limited to Israel, directly and through proxies. The regime’s “revolutionary” Islamic ideology has been the justification for its decades-long pattern and practice of international terrorism and military adventurism, as well as its multibillion-dollar investments in developing the “Axis of Resistance” and ballistic missile, drone, and nuclear capabilities.

First, Iran is responsible for countless armed attacks against the United States, both through its own military and through its partners and proxies. As context, Iran’s hostility toward the United States began with the 1979 Revolution, subsequent sacking of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and the abuse and torture of American hostages for 444 days. It continued throughout the years that followed—from the bombing of the U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983, which killed 241 U.S. service members; to the Khobar Towers assault in 1996, in which 19 U.S. service members were killed and 500 other individuals were wounded; to the direction of IED attacks against U.S. soldiers in Iraq, which killed at least 600 Americans over a period of eight years.

Iranian-sponsored attacks against the United States intensified in 2019. Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH) and other Iran-aligned militias receiving support from and sometimes acting under the direction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) fired rockets at bases in Iraq where U.S. personnel were located, including in an attack that killed a U.S. contractor and injured Iraqi military officers in December 2019. KH also organized a 2019 attack, approved by the IRGC, against the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that inflicted significant damage, and senior U.S. government officials concluded at that time that the IRGC was actively developing plans for further attacks against U.S. military personnel and diplomats in Iraq and throughout the region. The United States responded in self-defense with a targeted strike that killed IRGC Commander Qasem Soleimani, but Iranian armed attacks continued. Between 2021 and 2024, there were well over 100 attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq and Syria by the IRGC and its partners and proxies. All the while, Iran continued to publicly reiterate and privately pursue its lethal plotting operations against both U.S. officials and private citizens.

Second, the regime has for decades maintained a clear and public position that Israel must be annihilated.[1] To that end, the Islamic Republic has devoted massive human and financial resources in pursuit of this goal. The regime has organized, funded, and supported terrorist attacks against Jews, Israel, and Israeli interests worldwide. Following October 7th attacks against Israel by the Islamic Republic-funded, trained, armed, and supported terrorist organization Hamas,[2] Iran attacked Israel directly, launching historically massive direct and indiscriminate ballistic missile strikes and drone swarms in April and October 2024.

The armed conflict between Israel and Iran has been ongoing since at least that point, and likely years earlier, as Israel underscored in its March 10, 2026, letter to the Security Council. Adding to the threat posed by these direct assaults on Israel, Iran has developed an illicit nuclear program that, if it led to the production of a nuclear weapon, would pose an immediate and present danger to the very existence of the State of Israel when coupled with Iran’s massive and expanding ballistic missile delivery capabilities.[3]

Third, Iran’s extensive, long-term support of Hizballah, Hamas, the Houthis, and various Iran‑aligned militia groups in Iraq and Syria has enabled those terrorist organizations to carry out destabilizing attacks against Israel, the United States, Argentina, and others, including countries seeking to freely exercise transit rights through the Strait of Hormuz. While the regime has, at times, concealed its role in certain attacks of this nature, the United States has established Iranian direction, control, and even active participation as a co-belligerent in some of the operations of those groups, as the United States explained in a February 5, 2024 letter to the Security Council. Furthermore, the Islamic Republic’s financial, equipment, training, and operational support for these terrorist organizations has intentionally empowered these groups to sow chaos in the region.

In late 2024, President Trump was again elected. During the early months of the second Trump Administration, the United States initiated negotiations in an intensive effort to resolve the underlying root causes of the ongoing conflict: the longstanding threat posed by Iran to U.S. interests in the region, including its continued proxy attacks on U.S. personnel and facilities and its illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs. By June of 2025, however, it was clear that these efforts were fruitless.

II. An Analysis of the U.S. Response

Over many years, the Iranian regime engaged in a clear pattern of unprovoked aggression and direct and proxy attacks against Israel and the United States, while concurrently spending billions of dollars to operationalize its promise to destroy the former and continuously calling for “death” to the latter. That conduct established the factual basis and operative context for Operation Midnight Hammer, the U.S. military action that supported Israel in efforts to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program in June 2025. As indicated in its June 27 letter to the Security Council, the United States decided to act against the regime in collective self-defense of Israel, which, as described above, was undeniably already exercising its right of self-defense in response to an ongoing international armed conflict with the Islamic Republic. The June 27 letter built upon nine previous letters transmitted by the United States to the Security Council since 2021, including on February 27, 2021; June 29, 2021; August 26, 2022; March 27, 2023; October 30, 2023; November 14, 2023; November 28, 2023; December 29, 2023; January 26, 2024; and February 5, 2024.

Accordingly, the United States had an independent legal justification as a matter of jus ad bellum principles to enter into the conflict. But, as noted above, defensive U.S. actions could equally have been considered part of an ongoing international armed conflict between Iran and the United States itself, in which the United States was exercising its own, individual right of self-defense.

Some have argued that whatever the nature of the conflict with Iran that existed in June 2025, that conflict ended following the close of Operation Midnight Hammer, and that any further use of force must be considered a “fresh” use of force and justified anew under the jus ad bellum principles. But those critics have largely failed to acknowledge the facts—the clear pattern of ongoing Iranian attacks against the United States, Israel, and others in the region described above; the massive expansion of the regime’s offensive drone and ballistic missile capabilities; and its accelerated nuclear development—or to squarely address the legal question concerning when a conflict, once commenced, ceases.

According to the Department of War’s Law of War Manual, hostilities end when “opposing parties decide to end hostilities and actually do so, i.e., when neither the intent-based nor act-based tests for when hostilities exist are met.”[4] Similarly, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the legal test for whether an international armed conflict has ended is whether, based on an assessment of the facts on the ground, there has been a “general close of military operations” that has ended military movements of a bellicose nature “so that the likelihood of the resumption of hostilities can reasonably be discarded.”[5] Any assessment of whether an armed conflict has ended must be fact-based, taking into account both the intentions and the actions of the parties to the conflict.

Under either articulation of the customary international law standard for determining when an armed conflict has ended, the facts clearly support the proposition that the international armed conflict involving Iran, Israel, and the United States that was the subject of the June 27 Article 51 letter is ongoing.

As a threshold matter, the intense but ultimately fruitless attempts at negotiations by the United States in the first few months of the Trump administration, and again in late 2025 and early 2026, did not bring about an end to the conflict brought about by Iran’s continuing pattern of attacks between at least 2019 and 2024. States that attempt in good faith to resolve their disputes by peaceful means do not have their legitimate right of self-defense against an adversary extinguished by genuine but unsuccessful attempts to end a conflict. It was only after multiple attempts at negotiation failed that the United States resumed operations in this conflict.

Further, there is no evidence that any of the parties—Iran, Israel, or the United States—intended or decided to end either of the armed conflicts described above after the June 2025 operations. The parties did not make unilateral declarations concerning an end to hostilities, nor did they conclude any agreement related to the end of hostilities. After the June 2025 strikes, the parties observed a ceasefire to allow diplomatic negotiations to address the Islamic Republic’s continuing threat to the United States, Israel, and the region, but those negotiations failed. As was widely reported in the media, all parties—including Iran—continued to actively plan for further military engagements if diplomacy failed. The pause in hostilities during this period thus lacked the “stability” and “permanence” that must, as a matter of international law, be present to indicate an end to hostilities.

This legal approach is not, as some may argue, a conflation of the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello. For one, for purposes of a jus ad bellum analysis, there is no legal significance to the fact that the United States sent both a new notification to Congress under the War Powers Resolution and an Article 51 letter to the UN Security Council after operations resumed on February 28. Indeed, it is longstanding U.S. practice to submit such communications to both Congress and to the Security Council in situations where it is taking actions within the context of an ongoing armed conflict, and there are many such examples of it doing so.

But more fundamentally, if a conflict has not ended, then it must be ongoing. As a matter of international law, there is no requirement to continually reassess the jus ad bellum principles of necessity and proportionality in the context of an ongoing armed conflict. As former State Department Legal Adviser Brian Egan stated, “once a State has lawfully resorted to force in self-defense against a particular armed group following an actual or imminent armed attack by that group, it is not necessary as a matter of international law to reassess whether an armed attack is imminent prior to every subsequent action taken against that group, provided that hostilities have not ended.”[6] That principle applies equally once the United States has acted in self-defense against another State.

Even assuming arguendo that there was a jus ad bellum requirement to continually assess necessity and proportionality, those customary international law principles are satisfied here because of the scale and continued nature of the threat posed to the security of the United States and Israel. As the United States has previously explained: “A proper assessment of the proportionality of defensive use of force would require looking not only at the immediately preceding armed attack, but also at whether it was part of an ongoing series of attacks, what steps were already taken to deter future attacks, and what force could reasonably be judged as needed to successfully deter future attacks.”[7] Proportionality does not require that a State exercising its right of self-defense must use the same degree or type of force used by the attacking State in its most recent attack. Indeed, even if initial attacks are limited in scope but the attacking State continues to present a significant threat or to perpetrate further attacks specifically calibrated to avoid a larger response, the defending State may be justified in responding through an operation sufficient to decisively end the conflict.

Consistent with that understanding, the United States also noted in its communication to the Security Council that any assessment of the imminence, gravity, and scope of the threat posed by the Iranian regime would need to account for the decades of consistently malign foreign and domestic conduct and the dangerous and destabilizing risks of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in Iran’s hands. While the United States does not rely on a theory of imminence to justify its actions in this case—as described above, the United States believes that it and Israel were already engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with Iran as a result of the latter’s attacks—these factors are critically important in providing context for ongoing military operations.

Indeed, any legal analysis or process for determining the imminence of an attack and the proportionality of a potential response should account for the immense destructive power of nuclear weapons, the danger posed by ballistic delivery systems, the conduct of the relevant State actor, and the likelihood of other opportunities to mitigate the threat in the future.[8] The fact that these weapons are often developed in secret magnifies the potential danger to other States, which may not have the relevant intelligence reporting or opportunity to take measures to protect themselves against the potential use of such weapons before they are deployed. In considering the “imminence” of a nuclear attack, policy makers may also weigh the duration and gravity of repeated, public threats to eradicate other States and associated conduct, as well as defiance of international safeguards and attempts to develop capabilities to deliver a nuclear device. These statements and actions repeated over decades are often assertions of foreign policy objectives, not mere political slogans.

III. Conclusion

The operations recommenced in late February were part of an armed conflict with Iran that has been ongoing for years and, at the very least, since June 2025. Under well-established rules of international law, it is reasonable to conclude that this conflict did not end in the interim. And in an ongoing conflict, it is not necessary as a matter of international law to reassess whether an armed attack is imminent prior to every subsequent action taken against an adversary. Nor it is necessary to re-apply jus ad bellum standards of necessity and proportionality, although the actions taken by the United States would satisfy those principles if reapplied.

The United States has acted well within its international law obligations with respect to its use of force since operations began in late February. Iran, by contrast, has acted as any reasonable observer would have expected—lashing out against its neighbors, targeting Israeli civilians, murdering its own people, unlawfully closing the Strait of Hormuz, and wreaking havoc throughout the region. The regime’s outrageous, albeit predictable behavior only further underscores the fundamental necessity, utility, reasonableness, and lawfulness of Operation Epic Fury’s mission and goals.


[1] Prior to 1979, Iran and Israel maintained amicable relations. However, the Islamic revolution completely reversed this relationship. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, denounced Israel as an illegitimate “Zionist regime” and severed all diplomatic relations. He wrote: “If the rulers of the Muslim countries truly represented the believers and enacted God’s ordinances, they would set aside their petty differences, abandon their subversive and divisive activities, and join together like the fingers of one hand. Then a handful of wretched Jews (the agents of America, Britain, and other foreign powers) would never have been able to accomplish what they have, no matter how much support they enjoyed from America and Britain.” Since then, calls for Israel’s total destruction have been deeply embedded in official rhetoric, military programs, state-sponsored education, and symbolic events such as Quds Day.

[2] According to a West Point Center for the Study of Terrorism monograph, “there is little doubt that Iran’s financial aid, structuring of its proxies into more cohesive armed factions and then into umbrella organizations, and assistance through the supply of weapons increased the deadliness and extremism of its Palestinian proxies.” Without Iranian assistance and nurturing, these groups would not have been able to strike Israel as they did—armed capabilities supplied by Iran, such as a variety of UAV designs, rockets, demolition charges, and other munitions, were smuggled into Gaza and used to deadly effect. In summary, “Iranian assistance allowed its Palestinian proxies to amass the firepower, messaging know-how, and much of the hi-tech equipment necessary to carry out and propagandize the attack. Financial aid provided by Iran did more than keep Hamas operating as a governing body in Gaza; it was also directly piped into Hamas’ terror and military apparatus.”

[3] International law must acknowledge the uniquely destructive power of ballistic missiles with nuclear weapons. The inherent right to self-defense cannot rationally be construed to require a State to wait until a self-avowedly hostile actor has a nuclear warhead-tipped missile ready to launch before lawfully taking a disabling strike. Indeed, hesitation under these circumstances would render self-defense futile—practically speaking, the last effective opportunity to defend a civilian population from a nuclear attack by the Islamic Republic or other rogue regime would be before it obtains a nuclear weapon and the ability to attack with it. Any contrary rule would undermine deterrence and reward aggression.

[4] As further explained in the Law of War Manual, the usual indicators for a determination of termination include an agreement to end hostilities, usually in the form of a peace treaty; a unilateral declaration of one of the parties to end the war, provided the other party does not continue hostilities; the complete subjugation of an enemy State and its allies; or a simple cessation of hostilities. Law of War Manual, Sec. 3.8.1.

[5] See “Frequently Asked Questions: International Armed Conflict,” at https://www.icrc.org/en/article/faq-international-armed-conflict: “The declassification of conflicts must be based on the facts on the ground analyzed in light of the applicable IHL legal criterion. For the ICRC, this criterion is the general close of military operations. Hostilities must end with a degree of stability and permanence for the IAC to be considered terminated. A general close of military operations means not only the end of active hostilities, but also the end of military movements of a bellicose nature, including those that reform, reorganize or reconstitute, so that the likelihood of the resumption of hostilities can reasonably be discarded.”

[6] Brian Egan, International Law, Legal Diplomacy, and the Counter-ISIL Campaign, Speech at the American Society of International Law (April 1, 2016).

[7] William Taft, Self-Defense and the Oil Platforms Decision, 29 Yale Law International Journal 295 (2004).

[8] See Daniel Bethlehem, Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Non-State Actors, 106 Am. J. Int’l L. 1 (2012).

Followers