SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
endless war
'Unlike the United States,' Says Security Chief, Iran 'Has Prepared Itself for a Long War'
"Trump plunged the region into chaos with his 'delusional fantasies' and now fears more American troop casualties," said the secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani.
Mar 02, 2026
As US President Donald Trump unleashed a barrage of bombings on Monday in what is rapidly spiraling into a regional conflagration, Iran's security chief said the country is ready for a long war, but questioned whether the US is prepared for the same.
“Trump plunged the region into chaos with his ‘delusional fantasies’ and now fears more American troop casualties,” said Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, in a post on social media Monday. “With his delusional actions, he turned his self-made 'America First' slogan into 'Israel First' and sacrificed American soldiers for Israel’s power-hungry ambitions.”
"Iran, unlike the United States, has prepared itself for a long war," he said.
Just before US-Israeli strikes began this weekend, Iran reportedly offered Trump a deal that included Iran giving up all of its enriched uranium and full cooperation with international nuclear inspectors—terms even more conciliatory than those in the original Iran nuclear agreement that Trump ripped up during his first presidency.
But now the US and Israel have taken out several senior Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and included what some observers described as the "carpet bombing" of Tehran, including heavily populated civilian areas, Larijani has declared diplomacy off the table.
"We will not negotiate with the United States," he wrote on social media, disputing reports that he'd restarted talks with Washington.
With diplomatic avenues once again blown up, Iran has shifted toward making a war maximally costly for the US and Israel and deterring its other Arab allies from joining.
At least four US military personnel have already been killed, and four others seriously wounded in attacks at military bases in Kuwait. Trump has acknowledged that more casualties are "likely," which may further heighten the backlash among the American public, which already largely does not support the war, according to a poll released this weekend.
All six of the Gulf nations that host US military bases—including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain—have been hit with Iranian missiles and drones, with some attacks spilling into civilian areas—including Dubai's and Kuwait’s international airports, as well as luxury hotels and residential skyscrapers, which resulted in at least three reported civilian deaths.
Israel has also been pummelled with artillery from Iran and its allied militia Hezbollah in Lebanon. Strikes from Iran have reportedly killed at least 11 people and left dozens more injured in Israel, according to local authorities. Israel has retaliated with a massive attack on Lebanon, which the Lebanese health ministry has said killed at least 31 people.
While Iran lacks the military might of the US and Israel, it is likely seeking to deploy its arsenal of cheaper, older drones to deplete the two powerful countries' expensive air defense systems and force them into a war of attrition, according to Amos C. Fox, a professor at Arizona State University’s Future Security Initiative, and Franz-Stefan Gady, an associate fellow for cyber power and future conflict at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
"The attackers do not want to find themselves trapped in an attritional slugfest, where they burn through hundreds of millions of dollars per day, exhaust their stocks of the most advanced interceptors, and face the prospect of a prolonged war—not by losing on the battlefield but by simply exhausting their anti-air weapons in the coming days and weeks," they wrote in Foreign Policy magazine on Monday.
“The attackers do not want to find themselves trapped in an attritional slugfest, where they burn through hundreds of millions of dollars per day, exhaust their stocks of the most advanced interceptors, and face the prospect of a prolonged war—not by losing on the battlefield but by simply exhausting their anti-air weapons in the coming days and weeks,” they continued. “The United States and its allies may eventually win—but at what price in terms of material and treasure? Iran knows that Israeli and US theories of success are premised on a quick and decisive strike campaign. Iran’s strategy will therefore be to play for time, rather than operate in a way to support the US-Israeli timeline.”
Cranking up the pressure further, Iran has also declared that "no ship is allowed to pass" through the Strait of Hormuz, which handles around 20% of global oil shipments. Prices have already begun to spike, and shipments have been canceled. Financial analysts have predicted that the closure of the strait could drive the price of a barrel to nearly double, potentially triggering global economic instability.
While predicting that the war would be over in “four to five” weeks on Monday, Trump acknowledged the possibility for it to go “far longer than that,” saying, “We’ll do whatever.” He also said he would not rule out a deployment of ground troops.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted that this war, which has already claimed the lives of nearly 600 Iranians, would not be “endless” like the war in Iraq, which dragged on for nearly a decade and is estimated to have killed around half a million Iraqis.
However, after killing Khamenei, the Trump administration has provided little clarity on its military objectives. Meanwhile, their rationalizations for the conflict—including claims that an attack on US troops from Iran was imminent, and that it was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon—have proven untrue.
Trump has also admitted to Jonathan Karl, the chief Washington correspondent for ABC News, that many of the leading "candidates" to take over the country "are all dead" from US strikes.
Though Trump has said his goal is to secure the "freedom" of the Iranian people, international experts say decapitating its government is more likely to empower its most authoritarian elements or create a mad, violent scramble for power.
"The two most likely outcomes for Iran are the imposition of an even more ruthless regime controlled by the security apparatus and its new collective leadership or a fragmentation of the country, perhaps precipitated by tension between the military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC)," said Daniel Brumberg, non-resident senior fellow at the Arab Center in Washington DC. "Both could also ensue at once."
Shireen Hunter, an Iranian political scientist at the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, said that permanent destabilization may be the goal for the US, and—more importantly—Israel, which views Iran as its primary antagonist in the region.
“Slogans such as ‘freedom for Iranians’ and ‘Make Iran Great Again’ are meaningless. Do they want Iran to remain as a unified country? I have my doubts,“ she said. ”Saddam Hussein once said that five small Irans are better than one big Iran. Netanyahu agrees with that. What neither the US nor Israel wants is a strong nationalist government in Iran.“
"There is no obvious leader with the necessary qualifications to shape the nature of the new regime in Iran... any leader who comes to power by foreign intervention soon loses his or her legitimacy," she continued. "If the conflict continues, the risk of civil or even regional war is high, as is the risk of Iran's disintegration with unforeseeable consequences for regional countries."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No More Endless Wars,' Maduro Says to American People, Calling for 'Peace' in Face of Trump Threats
"No more unjust wars. No more Libya. No more Afghanistan. Long live peace," said the president of Venezuela.
Nov 14, 2025
Just as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced new branding for the US military campaign in Latin America, now known as "Operation Souther Spear," the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, on Thursday offered a message of peace directly to the people of the United States as he warned against further conflict.
In an exchange with a CNN correspondent during a rally for the nation's youth in Caracas, Maduro urged President Donald Trump not to prolong the region's military engagement. Asked if he had a message for the people of the United States, Maduro said in Spanish: “To unite for the peace of the continent. No more endless wars. No more unjust wars. No more Libya. No more Afghanistan.”
Asked if he had anything to say directly to Trump, Maduro replied in English: “Yes peace, yes peace.”
CNN: What is your message to the people of the United States?
Maduro: No more endless wars, no more unjust wars, no more Libya, no more Afghanistan.
CNN: Do you have a message for President Trump?
Maduro: My message is yes, peace. Yes, peace. pic.twitter.com/GpuRU2hqSG
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 14, 2025
Hegseth's rebranding of operations in Latin America, which has included a series of extrajudicial murders against alleged drug runners both in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, also arrived on Thursday.
He said that attacks on boats, which have now claimed the lives of at least 80 people, are part of President Donald Trump's targeting of "narco-terrorists." However, the administration has produced no evidence proving the allegations against these individuals nor shared with the American people the legal basis for the extrajudicial killings that deprive victims of due process.
With a significant military buildup that includes the world's largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R.Ford, fears have grown that Trump is considering a wider military attack on targets inside Venezuelan territory, despite having no congressional authorization for such use of force against a nation with which the US is not at war.
CBS News reports that Trump has been briefed on possible military "options" for an assault on Venezuela, while anti-war voices continue to warn against any such moves.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Endless War Delivered Trump—Not Once, But Twice
The far-reaching impacts of incessant war on American life in this century have received short shrift.
Mar 02, 2025
Donald Trump’s power has thrived on the economics, politics, and culture of war. The runaway militarism of the last quarter-century was a crucial factor in making President Trump possible, even if it goes virtually unmentioned in mainstream media and political discourse. That silence is particularly notable among Democratic leaders, who have routinely joined in bipartisan messaging to boost the warfare state that fueled the rise of Trumpism.
Trump first ran for president nearly a decade and a half after the “Global War on Terror” began in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The crusade’s allure had worn off. The national mood was markedly different than in the era when President George W. Bush insisted that “our responsibility” was to “rid the world of evil.”
Working-class Americans had more modest goals for their government. Distress festered as income inequality widened and economic hardships worsened, while federal spending on war, the Pentagon budget, and the “national security” state continued to zoom upward. Even though the domestic effects of protracted warfare were proving to be enormous, multilayered, and deeply alienating, elites in Washington scarcely seemed to notice.
Donald Trump, however, did notice.
Pundits were shocked in 2015 when Trump mocked the war record of Republican Senator John McCain. The usual partisan paradigms were further upended during the 2016 presidential campaign when Trump denounced his opponent, Hillary Clinton, as “trigger happy.” He had a point. McCain, Clinton, and their cohort weren’t tired of U.S. warfare — in fact, they kept glorifying it — but many in non-affluent communities had grown sick of its stateside consequences.
Pretending that militarism is not a boon to authoritarian politics only strengthens it.
Repeated deployments of Americans to war zones had taken their toll. The physical and emotional wounds of returning troops were widespread. And while politicians were fond of waxing eloquent about “the fallen,” the continual massive spending for war and preparations for more of it depleted badly needed resources at home.
Status-Quo Militarism
President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton represented the status quo that Trump ran against and defeated. Like them, he was completely insulated from the harsh boomerang effects of the warfare state. Unlike them, he sensed how to effectively exploit the discontent and anger it was causing.
Obama was not clueless. He acknowledged some downsides to endless war in a much-praised speech during his second term in office. “Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” he affirmed at the National Defense University. “But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”
New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer hailed that instance of presidential oratory in a piece touting Obama’s “anguish over the difficult trade-offs that perpetual war poses to a free society.” But such concerns were fleeting at the White House, while sparking little interest from mainstream journalists. Perpetual war had become wallpaper in the media echo chamber.
President Bush’s messianic calls to rid the world of “evil-doers” had fallen out of fashion, but militarism remained firmly embedded in the political economy. Corporate contracts with the Pentagon and kindred agencies only escalated. But when Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2016, being a rigid hawk became a negative with the electorate as pro-Trump forces jumped into the opening she provided.
Six weeks before the election, Forbes published an article under the headline “Hillary Clinton Never Met a War She Didn’t Want Other Americans to Fight.” Written by Doug Bandow, former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, the piece exemplified how partisan rhetoric about war and peace had abruptly changed. Clinton “almost certainly would lead America into more foolish wars,” Bandow contended, adding: “No one knows what Trump would do in a given situation, which means there is a chance he would do the right thing. In contrast, Clinton’s beliefs, behavior, and promises all suggest that she most likely would do the wrong thing, embracing a militaristic status quo which most Americans recognize has failed disastrously.”
Clinton was following a timeworn formula for Democrats trying to inoculate themselves against charges of being soft on foreign enemies, whether communists or terrorists. Yet Trump, deft at labeling his foes both wimps and warmongers, ran rings around the Democratic nominee. In that close election, Clinton’s resolutely pro-war stance may have cost her the presidency.
“Even controlling in a statistical model for many other alternative explanations, we find that there is a significant and meaningful relationship between a community’s rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump,” a study by scholars Douglas Kriner and Francis Shen concluded. “Our statistical model suggests that if three states key to Trump’s victory — Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin — had suffered even a modestly lower casualty rate, all three could have flipped from red to blue and sent Hillary Clinton to the White House.” Professors Kriner and Shen suggested that Democrats might want to “reexamine their foreign policy posture if they hope to erase Trump’s electoral gains among constituencies exhausted and alienated by 15 years of war.”
But such advice went unheeded. Leading Democrats and Republicans remained on autopilot for the warfare state as the Pentagon budget kept rising.
On the War Train with Donald Trump
In 2018, the top Democrats in Washington, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, boasted that they were fully aligned with President Trump in jacking up Pentagon spending. After Trump called for an 11% increase over two years in the already-bloated “defense” budget, Pelosi sent an email to House Democrats declaring, “In our negotiations, congressional Democrats have been fighting for increases in funding for defense.” The office of Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer proudly stated: “We fully support President Trump’s Defense Department’s request.”
By then, fraying social safety nets and chronic fears of economic insecurity had become ever more common across the country. The national pattern evoked Martin Luther King’s comment that profligate military spending was like “some demonic destructive suction tube.”
In 2020, recurring rhetoric from Joe Biden in his winning presidential campaign went like this: “If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever alter the character of our nation.” But Biden said nothing about how almost 20 years of nonstop war funding and war making had already altered the character of the nation.
At first glance, President Biden seemed to step away from continuing the “war on terror.” The last U.S. troops left Afghanistan by the end of August 2021. Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly weeks later, he proclaimed: “I stand here today, for the first time in 20 years, with the United States not at war.” But even as he spoke, a new report from the Costs of War Project at Brown University indicated that the “war on terror” persisted on several continents. “The war continues in over 80 countries,” said Catherine Lutz, the project’s co-director. The war’s cost to taxpayers, the project estimated, was already at least $8 trillion.
Biden’s designated successor, Vice President Kamala Harris, displayed a traditional militaristic reflex while campaigning against Trump. In her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention she pledged to maintain “the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” Such rhetoric was problematic for attracting voters from the Democratic base reluctant to cast ballots for a war party. More damaging to her election prospects was her refusal to distance herself from Biden’s insistence on continuing to supply huge quantities of weaponry to Israel for the horrific war in Gaza.
Supplementing the automatic $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel, special new appropriations for weaponry totaling tens of billions of dollars enabled mass killing in Gaza. Poll results at the time showed that Harris would have gained support in swing states if she had called for an arms embargo on Israel as long as the Gaza war continued. She refused to do so.
Post-election polling underscored how Harris’s support for that Israeli war appreciably harmed her chances to defeat Trump. In 2024, as in 2016, Trump notably benefitted from the unwavering militarism of his Democratic opponent.
Overseas, the realities of nonstop war have been unfathomably devastating. Estimates from the Costs of War Project put the number of direct deaths in major war zones from U.S.-led actions under the “war on terror” brand at more than 900,000. With indirect deaths included, the number jumps to “4.5 million and counting.” The researchers explain that “some people were killed in the fighting, but far more, especially children, have been killed by the reverberating effects of war, such as the spread of disease.”
That colossal destruction of faraway human beings and the decimation of distant societies have gotten scant attention in mainstream U.S. media and politics. The far-reaching impacts of incessant war on American life in this century have also gotten short shrift. Midway through the Biden presidency, trying to sum up some of those domestic impacts, I wrote in my book War Made Invisible:
“Overall, the country is gripped by war’s dispersed and often private consequences — the aggravated tendencies toward violence, the physical wartime injuries, the post-traumatic stress, the profusion of men who learned to use guns and were trained to shoot to kill when scarcely out of adolescence, the role modeling from recruitment ads to popular movies to bellicose bombast from high-ranking leaders, and much more. The country is also in the grip of tragic absences: the health care not deemed fundable by those who approve federal budgets larded with military spending, the child care and elder care and family leave not provided by those same budgets, the public schools deprived of adequate funding, the college students and former students saddled with onerous debt, the uncountable other everyday deficits that have continued to lower the bar of the acceptable and the tolerated.”
While the warfare state seems all too natural to most politicians and journalists, its consequences over time have been transformational for the United States in ways that have distinctly skewed the political climate. Along the way, militarism has been integral to the rise of the billionaire tech barons who are now teaming up with an increasingly fascistic Donald Trump.
The Military-Industrial-Tech Complex
While President Trump has granted Elon Musk unprecedented power, many other tech moguls have rushed to ingratiate themselves. The pandering became shameless within hours of his election victory last November.
“Congratulations to President Trump on a decisive victory,” Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote. “We have great opportunities ahead of us as a country. Looking forward to working with you and your administration.” Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, Whole Foods, and the Washington Post, tweeted: “wishing @realDonaldTrump all success in leading and uniting the America we all love.”
Amazon Web Services alone has numerous government contracts, including one with the National Security Agency worth $10 billion and deals with the Pentagon pegged at $9.7 billion. Such commerce is nothing new. For many years, thousands of contracts have tied the tech giants to the military-industrial complex.
Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, and smaller rivals are at the helm of corporations eager for government megadeals, tax breaks, and much more. For them, the governmental terrain of the new Trump era is the latest territory to navigate for maximizing their profits. With annual military outlays at 54% of all federal discretionary spending, the incentives are astronomical for all kinds of companies to make nice with the war machine and the man now running it.
While Democrats in Congress have long denounced Trump as an enemy of democracy, they haven’t put any sort of brake on American militarism. Certainly, there are many reasons for Trump’s second triumph, including his exploitation of racism, misogyny, nativism, and other assorted bigotries. Yet his election victories owe much to the Democratic Party’s failure to serve the working class, a failure intermeshed with its insistence on serving the industries of war. Meanwhile, spending more on the military than the next nine countries combined, U.S. government leaders tacitly lay claim to a kind of divine overpowering virtue.
As history attests, militarism can continue for many decades while basic democratic structures, however flawed, remain in place. But as time goes on, militarism is apt to be a major risk factor for developing some modern version of fascism. The more war and preparations for war persist, with all their economic and social impacts, the more core traits of militarism — including reliance on unquestioning obedience to authority and sufficient violence to achieve one’s goals — will permeate the society at large.
During the last 10 years, Donald Trump has become ever more autocratic, striving not just to be the nation’s commander-in-chief but also the commandant of a social movement increasingly fascistic in its approach to laws and civic life. He has succeeded in taking on the role of top general for the MAGA forces. The frenzies that energize Trump’s base and propel his strategists have come to resemble the mentalities of warfare. The enemy is whoever dares to get in his way.
A warfare state is well suited for such developments. Pretending that militarism is not a boon to authoritarian politics only strengthens it. The time has certainly come to stop pretending.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular