Here’s today’s example:

Top News

Lebanon Emerges as Weak Link in U.S.-Iran Deal to End War

The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, once seen as a secondary front to the American-Israeli war on Iran, has become one of the main obstacles to ending it.

*****

It’s not Lebanon that’s the weak link here—it’s Israel.

Israel is the attacker. The aggressor. The country that wants to scupper the MOU between the USA and Iran. Everyone knows this—except the NYT, apparently.

I like too how the NYT describes it as the “American-Israeli war on Iran.” At the very least, it should be Israeli-American war of aggression against Iran.

And when was Lebanon a “secondary front” to the USA? America has no desire to seize land and water in southern Lebanon. That goal is entirely Israel’s, as is its fight against Hezbollah, which is responding to Israeli aggression.

The Iran War has been a huge loser (to put it in Trumpian terms) for the U.S., and only Israel seeks to prolong it. Again, who’s the weak link in the U.S.-Iran deal to end the war?

I’ve been playing with Trumpian language to describe the Iran War and its outcome. As Trump might say, it’s been a defeat for America the likes of which we’ve never seen before. No other defeat comes close.

I think Trump finally understands that. The question is, will “weak link” Israel let him withdraw or will the war become even more catastrophic?

Earthrise from Apollo 8 in 1968.

America needs to recover its dream for space, its thirst for knowledge, its drive to boldly go and to explore. Instead, the Trump administration seeks to militarize space further. Nightmares of danger and of dominance drive America now. Surveillance satellites invade privacy further. Weapons are led to their targets, often innocents, by GPS. A veneer of precision masks the agony of children killed for “greater” Israel or to make America “great again.”

Wars don’t make one great, as Yoda the Jedi Master reminded us. Weapons in space are escalatory and stupid. “I’m impatient with stupidity,” the alien emissary Klaatu said as he visited our planet in “The Day the Earth Stood Still” (1951). I’m in total agreement with Klaatu.

Stupidity is represented by Donald Trump’s “Golden Dome” project. It will never work to shield America from a concerted enemy attack consisting of missiles with multiple nuclear warheads. What it represents instead is a giant boondoggle for weapons makers and a further militarization and weaponization of space itself.

I was six years old when astronauts first walked on the moon. I had a poster on my bedroom wall illustrating the Apollo mission, featuring its orbital trajectories along with diagrams of space suits and similar equipment. That was what inspired me to want to join Air Force Space Command in 1985, not images of satellites being shattered by ASAT missiles. Not violence in or from space.

Humanity’s “childish jealousies” and “petty squabbles” (the words are Klaatu’s) are being exported into space. The narcissism of men like Trump and Elon Musk, as well as their greed, is making space an increasingly unsafe space for humanity. The Age of Aquarius is increasingly the Age of Starship Troopers. Of “warriors” and “warfighters” in space, contesting over the new high ground.

Perhaps, as the tagline from the movie “Alien” had it, in space “no one can hear you scream.” But unless we reverse the arrant stupidity of our militarized space policies and our love of violence and war, we will most certainly hear the screams here on earth.

My fellow Americans, my fellow space lovers, let’s make space a safe space for all humanity. Revel not in violence but in the beauty of our cosmos.

*A version of this essay appears in the latest Space Alert! newsletter.

Talleyrand’s saying points to the limits of military force. Not all problems are solved or even solvable by military action. Yet the temptation within the U.S. government is always to reach for the bayonet. It has hurt America and indeed much of the world that’s been bloodied at the sharp end of U.S. military power.

Iran is the latest case of the limits to bayonets. Whether the bayonets take the form of Tomahawk missiles or various bombs and other forms of munitions, targets can certainly be struck, people can certainly be killed, but for what purpose, and to what end? And if Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and is able to threaten the world’s economy with inflation and depression, the bayonet hardly offers much by way of solution.

This is apparently the conclusion reached recently by President Trump. He’d be wise to stick to it, but whether he has the fortitude to stay the course amid pressure from Republicans, Democrats, and Israel remains to be seen.

With the Iran War, it’s obvious who’s lost. The American people have lost. The war has already cost our country roughly $100 billion, and Americans have been driven deeper into debt as inflationary pressures bite into personal budgets, which are increasingly stretched to the breaking point.

Who’s won? Zionist Israel has won, at least for now as it pursues its vision of “greater” Israel. Iran has won (despite suffering considerable damage and casualties), emerging stronger on the global stage by standing up to U.S. and Israeli forces. And of course war profiteers have won, including fossil fuel companies, banks, and especially the military-industrial complex.

The war’s been a disaster for America, yet the Pentagon is on course to getting a colossal raise by Trump. For the warmongers and weapons makers, losing is winning yet again.

The Judge and I also talked about the U.S. military and its identity. I lamented the ongoing emphasis on lethality, on killing, the whole warrior and warfighter mystique. The U.S. military today has a narrow vision of professionalism focused on “kinetic” action—basically, winning by blowing things up, by killing “bad guys.” irrespective of legality and morality.

The citizen-soldier tradition of World War II has been cast aside for warrior-nihilism. It’s a startling transition that’s been happening for decades but which under Trump/Hegseth has reached a grim apotheosis.

Warrior-nihilism may be the biggest issue the U.S. military faces today—even more pressing than escalatory nuclear weapons spending, Golden Dome boondoggles, and grossly inflated budgets. The U.S. military is supposed to believe in something—specifically, supporting and defending the Constitution and our fundamental rights as citizens.

A warrior-military that believes in nothing but its own strength is an anathema to anyone who believes in democracy.

Isn’t that amazing. A war in Iran has killed thousands of people. Like an uncontrollable, unpredictable, natural disaster. Like an earthquake.

No mention that Israeli and U.S. missile and bomb strikes killed thousands of Iranians, so many of them innocents, including the now infamous strike on a primary school in Minab that killed 150+.

That “war” has also disrupted shipping, inflated prices, etc. Too bad we can’t control that war. I guess they just happen and “people” in the thousands just die.

Shame on the New York Times for such Orwellian constructions that treat war in this way.

At the top, there’s a lack of principles, a lack of clarity, a lack of care.

There’s no accountability for losses and bad decisions.

The government keeps the people isolated from war’s true costs. There’s no call for sacrifice. No war bonds, no draft, no increase in taxes. Costs are largely kicked into the future as the national debt soars ever higher.

An all-volunteer military is essentially told to follow orders. Never mind about the morality or legality of the same.

The people are encouraged to cheer on or otherwise to support their warriors and warfighters. Basically, to wave the flag but otherwise to go about their business.

A divided Congress has essentially rendered itself powerless over war-making. Meanwhile, Members of Congress fight for their share of an expanding Pentagon pie of money (or pork) for their districts.

The Secretary of State says we went to war with Iran because Israel forced the U.S. government’s hand. So apparently in this case the U.S. military fights for Israel.

So far, the main beneficiaries of the war appear to be defense contractors, fossil fuel companies and banks, so apparently the U.S. military is fighting for them as well.

Clearly, with Iran the U.S. military is not fighting to defend the American people or to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Again, who knows why we fight?

It’s always useful to ask Cui bono? while following the money. I asked my AI friends who’s benefiting from this war, and this was the answer the HAL 9000 spit out:

*****

The primary beneficiaries of the Iran war are Western defense contractors, major oil and gas corporations, and geopolitical rivals like Russia and China. The conflict has resulted in billions of dollars in windfalls for arms manufacturers and energy producers, while simultaneously shifting regional power balances. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Defense Contractors

• Stock Surges: Arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have seen multi-billion dollar gains.

• Missile & Defense Demand: High demand for THAAD interceptors and other Raytheon systems drives excess revenue. [1, 2]

Oil & Gas Majors

• Record Profits: Surging crude prices have boosted revenues for producers like ExxonMobil and Chevron.

• Energy Traders: European giants like Shell and BP capitalized on market chaos and sharp price movements. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Geopolitical Rivals

• Russia: The conflict acts as a fiscal rescue by diverting Western attention and skyrocketing global energy prices.

• China: China’s regional strategic influence is strengthened as the US is forced to divert military resources to the Middle East. [1]

Regional Powers

• Israel: The war has neutralized immediate adversaries and solidified the country’s military posture in the region.

*****

Certainly, it’s indisputable how much the weapons makers and fossil fuel companies are profiting here.

Famously, Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler confessed in the 1930s he’d served as a gangster for capitalism with Standard Oil being one of his biggest clients. The Iran War seems to have benefited Israel, oil and gas interests, and military contractors the most, even as the average American has been hurt by inflation with much higher prices for gas, oil, groceries, and the like.

Interestingly, my AI friend didn’t list Iran as a major beneficiary of the war, but many have argued persuasively that Iran will emerge stronger from this conflict.

Again, it’s a most confusing time to be in the U.S. military.

PS: I thought I’d add this response I made to TomR’s comment below:

In 1985, when I pinned on those 2LT bars, I thought I had some clarity. America, though hardly perfect, was better than the model offered by the Soviet Union. Then the USSR collapsed in 1991, and the government went looking for new dragons to slay. And we found them and we keep finding them because we keep sowing the dragon’s teeth.

So the U.S. military has become a perpetual fighting machine, never mind the Constitution, never mind democracy, never mind morality or legality. If we don’t have enemies, we’ll create them.

It might matter what we thought if we lived in a democracy, but we don’t. We live in a kleptocracy, a kakistocracy.

First, we must recognize we’ve lost our say--that we don’t have a government that represents us--then we need to reform, re-create, or otherwise change that government.

Again, in the main, Americans don’t want militarism and wars--but there are other forces at work that do want these things, for their reasons, and they are in control.

Americans, I believe, don’t want more nuclear weapons. We’re getting them anyway. Read this article by Bill Hartung on the profiteers of Armageddon.

Americans, I believe, don’t want to spend between $1.5 trillion to $2.3 trillion each year on the Pentagon and war (read this POGO report on the true total U.S. military budget), but the warmongers and the military-industrial complex spend that money anyway.

As George Carlin said, the owners don’t care about you—at all! At all! At all! Your preferences, your needs, simply don’t matter. You have no say. To “our” leaders, the owners, inflation is good—just ask President Trump. Rising gas prices are great—for fossil fuel companies. Rising credit card balances and debt are healthy—for bankers.

We need to act. We need to change American-made destruction into American-made construction. We must become builders again, not destroyers.

The weapons they fund and build, the wars they prosecute, all the shredded human bodies, and for what? What morally abject fools the weapons makers and warmongers are. Why do we allow them to get away with it?

Until we regain our morality and our nerve, until we cast aside the kakistocrats and kleptocrats ruling us, we will remain stuck in the malaise of mindless militarism and endless war.

Withhold your consent. Run for office yourself. Organize and protest. Talk to your neighbors. Even write a blog. Whatever you can do to derail the war train rushing toward Armageddon is a good thing.

And don’t ever give up.

Just love his voice.

And the drummer! Reading the comments at Youtube, I learned his name is James Gadson. He died this past April. A great comment from a listener: “he’s cooler than the other side of the pillow.”

Who knew joy could be so cool?

Baby! Baby!

World

Analysis of Satellite Image and Videos Suggest Precision U.S. Strikes on Iranian Water Facility

It is unclear if the U.S. intentionally struck the facility or knew what it was. Deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure could constitute a war crime.

*****

America’s leaders are always boasting of precision weaponry. Yet the NYT suggests that a precision strike against an Iranian water facility was possibly unintentional, an accident, I guess. Since an intentional strike against critical infrastructure (you can’t get more critical than potable water) for civilians would constitute a war crime—and obviously America would never do that!

Even asking that question, self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth bloviated, is both “disingenuous” and “impugning” the motives of America’s military professionals.

We can’t have reporters asking questions that might impugn the motives of our brave leaders.

Hegseth seems to enjoy himself the most when he’s attacking the media for their lack of faith in him.

The Iran War, yet another disastrous war for the American people (and of course even more so for Iranians), may continue until President Trump’s morale improves. And that may prove to be a very long time. Remember when Hegseth suggested that the war would last eight weeks at most? It’s already roughly double that with no end in sight.

Check out the Iran War Clock. And the war clock keeps ticking …

What Is So Awful About Donald Trump? (posted on May 23, 2016)

Donald Trump‘s faults are legion. But which ones are truly awful?

A crass womanizer who brags about his penis. But wait a minute. Lyndon B. Johnson was vulgar and crude and crass and a womanizer -- and LBJ was easily eclipsed as a womanizer by John F. Kennedy.

A bigot who attacks Mexican immigrants and Muslims among other “undesirables.” But wait a minute. Richard Nixon railed against the Blacks and the Jews, among other “enemies” of Nixon’s righteous “silent majority” of Americans.

An ignoramus who knows little of foreign policy. But wait a minute. Many presidential candidates have lacked foreign policy experience (Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, to cite two recent examples).

A posturing tough-guy who supports torture for America’s enemies and the murder of terrorists’ families. But wait a minute. The Bush/Cheney administration freely used torture (they just called it “enhanced interrogation techniques”), and the Obama administration freely uses drones to “take out” terrorists and whoever may be with them (including innocent family members).

A serial liar who can’t be taken at his word. But wait a minute. Name any president, other than Jimmy Carter, who prioritized truth-telling.

A bully who bludgeons his opponents into submission. But wait a minute. Just think of LBJ, Nixon, and Dick Cheney (yes, he was a Vice President, but still). These men were all bullies.

A shameless showman who exploits the media while professing to hate it. But wait a minute. Nixon despised the media; the media colluded with Kennedy to hide his negative qualities; and Obama has cozied up to the corporate media even as he’s actively prosecuted whistleblowers.

Focusing on Trump’s many “awfuls” is not the best way to defeat him, since America’s presidents have hardly been choir boys. Put simply, Trump’s prejudicial attitudes toward women, minorities, and other groups or peoples he doesn’t like don’t mark him as exceptional, nor does his record of flip-flops on issues, as the American people have come to expect that politicians are basically liars.

Where Trump is vulnerable, I believe, is his tyrannical qualities. Trump’s past behavior suggests he sees himself as above the law. Put differently, he sees himself as a law unto himself. And if he wins the presidency I simply don’t believe he’ll honor his oath of office to the U.S. Constitution.

Remember during the Frost Interviews when Nixon said, If the president does it, that means it’s legal? That’s Trump in a nutshell. Recall during the Republican presidential debates when Trump said the U.S. military would obey his orders regardless of their legality under the U.S. Constitution. Yes, he later recanted that dictatorial position, but his initial answer revealed his essential nature: I’m in charge, I’ll do what I want, everyone else has to obey me.

Here “Star Trek” fans may recall an episode from the original series called “Space Seed,” featuring Ricardo Montalban as Khan. A tyrant from Earth’s past, Khan speaks of unifying humanity under a strong leader. Spock’s reply is telling: “Unify, sir? Like a team of animals under one whip?”

Khan then waxes about the wonders of one-man rule, eventually blurting out, “We offered the world order!” The Donald, today’s version of Khan, offers to make America great again.

Trump has the makings of a tyrant. His approach to the presidency is fundamentally undemocratic. His statements and behavior suggest if he becomes president he’ll do what he wants and expect others to fall into line, even the U.S. military, which swears its oath to the U.S. Constitution and not to any one leader. At a time when Congress has abdicated its responsibility to declare war or to check executive warmaking prerogatives, a tyrant like Trump is an especially dangerous prospect as president.

Because of this, Trump is truly an awful choice for president.

Postscript (2026): What does it say about America (and the Democratic Party) that Trump was elected not once but twice? A man with so many negatives, a man who thinks he is the law, a man who cares so little for others even as he’s so fixated on himself.

Cheer up, America: cage fights are coming to mark his 80th birthday. I didn’t see that one coming.

By the way, it’s the UFC Freedom 250 fight card. Because nothing celebrates “freedom” like cage fights. Are you not entertained?

America, of course, increasingly resembles the decadent Roman Empire without the victories. That said, here’s my article from 2013, with a short intro from 2017:

Bread and Circuses in Rome and America

W.J. Astore

Back in June 2013, I wrote the following article on “Bread and Circuses in Rome and America.” It flashed through my mind this morning because of Robert Lipsyte’s post today at TomDispatch.com on Trump, the NFL, violence, race, brain injuries, and patriotism. I urge you to read it as well as Tom Engelhardt’s introduction, which cites the bread and circuses of the Roman Empire.

A key insight in my article below came from a correspondent, Amy Scanlon, who keenly observed that the Roman Imperium saw compassion, not violence, as a vice. The gladiatorial games were meant to keep Romans at a fever pitch for war (with the bloody, murderous games being the next best thing to war). It’s not much of a stretch to think of NFL violence as keeping Americans at a similar feverish pitch; and, not just the NFL, but the commercials during the games, which are often saturated with guns and violence and war.

Here’s my article, unchanged from 2013:

Bread and Circuses in Rome and America

By William Astore

The expression “bread and circuses“ captures a certain cynical political view that the masses can be kept happy with fast food (think Cartman’s “Cheesy Poofs” on South Park) and faster entertainment (NASCAR races, NFL games, and the like). In the Roman Empire, it was bread and chariot races and gladiatorial games that filled the belly and distracted the mind, allowing emperors to rule as they saw fit.

There’s truth to the view that people can be kept tractable as long as you fill their bellies and give them violent spectacles to fill their free time. Heck, Americans are meekly compliant even when their government invades their privacy and spies upon them. But there’s a deeper, more ominous, sense to bread and circuses that is rarely mentioned in American discourse. It was pointed out to me by Amy Scanlon.

In her words:

Basically ancient Rome was a society that completely revolved around war, and where compassion was considered a vice rather than a virtue… [The] Romans saw gladiatorial contests not as a form of decadence but as a cure for decadence. And decadence to the Romans had little to do with sexual behavior or lack of a decent work ethic, but a lack of military-style honor and soldierly virtues. To a Roman compassion was a detestable vice, which was considered both decadent and feminine. Watching people and animals slaughtered brutally [in the arena] was seen as a way to keep the civilian population from this ‘weakness’ because they didn’t see combat…

Scanlon then provocatively asks, “Could our society be sliding towards those Roman attitudes in a bizarre sort of way?”

I often think that America suffers from an empathy gap. We are simply not encouraged to put ourselves in the place of others. For example, how many Americans fancy the idea of a foreign power operating drones in our sovereign skies, launching missiles at gun-toting Americans suspected by this foreign power of being “militants“? Yet we operate drones in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, killing suspected militants with total impunity. Even when innocent women and children are killed, our emperors and our media don’t encourage us to have compassion for them. We are basically told to think of them as collateral damage, regrettable, perhaps, but otherwise inconsequential.

Certainly, our military in the last two decades has put new stress on American troops as “warriors” and “warfighters,” a view more consistent with the hardened professionals of the Roman Empire than with the citizen-soldiers of the Roman Republic. Without thinking too much about it, we’ve come to see our troops as an imperial guard, ever active on the ramparts of our empire. War, meanwhile, is seen not as a last course of defense but as a first course to preempt the evil designs of the many hidden enemies of America. Our troops, therefore, are our protectors, our heroes, the defenders of America, even though that “defense” treats the entire globe as a potential killing field.

Scanlon’s view of the Roman use of bread and circuses — as a way to kill compassion to ensure the brutalization of Roman civilians and thus their compliance (or at least their complacency) vis-à-vis Imperial expansion and domestic policing — is powerful and sobering.

At the same time, the Obama administration is increasingly couching violent military intervention in humanitarian terms. Deploying troops and tipping wars in our favor is done in the name of defeating petty tyrants (e.g. Khadafy in Libya; Is Assad of Syria next?). Think of it as our latest expression of “compassion.”

All things considered, perhaps our new national motto should be: When in America, do as the Roman Empire would do. Eat to your fill of food and violence, cheer on the warfighters, and dismiss expressions of doubt or dismay about military interventions and drone killings as “feminine” and “weak.”

At least we can applaud ourselves that we no longer torture and kill animals in the arena like the Romans did. See how civilized we’ve become?

With the Iran War, two men determined America’s attack on Iran, and one was a foreign leader. The latest aggression against Iran is inconceivable without Bibi Netanyahu and Donald Trump. Of course, there are plenty of operators and schemers and interests behind these men, but they are proud to take credit as the deciders.

This isn’t supposed to be how America goes to war. War is supposed to be a constitutional process involving the Congress and the people. There is to be no war without the consent of the governed. And there should be no wars of aggression, for a democracy should know that persistent wars are an insidious and pernicious enemy of freedom and liberty.

In spite of that, war persists in America. If you’re 25 years old or younger in America, you’ve never known a time when your country has been at peace. Nor is there any prospect of peace in the next three years. I’ve lost track of the countries the Trump administration has bombed or attacked or snatched the leader of, but besides Iran the list would include Venezuela, Somalia, Nigeria, and Yemen. And let us not forget U.S. efforts in the Russia-Ukraine War, for nuclear-armed Russia surely won’t forget.

There’s simply no end to America’s wars partly because it’s all just so easy.

A common expression inside the Washington Beltway is that “all options are on the table,” meaning the worst option, that of deadly attacks and even war, is always an option. A harsh truth is that it’s increasingly the only option considered in DC circles.

The U.S. State Department has become a tiny branch of the Pentagon. Diplomacy takes time. Patience. Expertise. Empathy. A willingness to compromise. Within the Trump administration, these are qualities in short supply, even as they’re not respected. Washington sees itself as a hegemon, the lone and dominant superpower, barking out orders and threats with unrestrained profligacy.

It’s a recipe for disaster and that is what it’s produced: disaster after disaster.

Yesterday, the House finally and narrowly approved a resolution to halt military action against Iran. Its immediate impact is limited and mainly symbolic. As usual, the Democrats fumbled the messaging, making it about gas and grocery prices:

“Enough is enough,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who led the effort.

“It is time for the president to do the right thing,” he said. “The people are tired of suffering because of his war of choice — suffering at the gas pump, suffering at the supermarkets.”

Let’s not focus on the unconstitutional nature of the war, the needless deaths of thousands of Iranians, the enormous price tag of $100 billion or more. It’s really about Americans having to pay more to gas up their steroidal SUVs and monster trucks.

As America approaches its 250th birthday, it’s enduring a tyranny of the warmongers. Yet again, Americans find themselves under the thumb of a tyrannical and foreign government. It is exceedingly difficult to see how we chart a new course when we are so hopelessly lost.

Take heart, America: At least there will be cage fighting soon on the White House lawn. Bread is dear, but the circuses are here.

What is driving this enormous price tag? Conceits like Trump’s Golden Dome, a missile defense shield that will never work as advertised for a cost of $1 trillion or more. A golden fleet of Trump battleships when the battleship was rendered obsolete by World War II. Eighty years ago! Prodigious “investments” in the nuclear triad like the unnecessary Sentinel ICBM and the redundant B-21 Raider bomber. A new fighter jet, the F-47, numbered to curry favor with Trump, America’s 47th and possibly worst president.

Yet, even more worrisome than throwing trillions down the tubes is how Trump and Hegseth are perverting the U.S. military, making it serve Zionist imperatives and agendas while turning it into a Christocentric cult of unholy warriors. If that’s not bad enough, Hegseth is conducting his own social engineering experiments by purging officers he doesn’t like and preventing a disproportionate number of Black and female officers from pinning on their first star.

Speaking of Trump and Hegseth, a Biblical expression just popped into my head: When the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.

Other topics discussed include Trump’s alleged cussing out of Bibi Netanyahu (to no apparent effect) and Israel’s continued expansion into Lebanon and elsewhere. While Trump’s strategy remains obscured in darkness (deep in a pit, perhaps), Israel’s strategy is clear: annex Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and much of Syria in the cause of a Greater Israel with more power and command over regional water supplies and offshore gas and oil reserves.

And at the price of mounting a murderous genocide, I suppose that strategy is on its way to being achieved, never mind the blood and screams of innocents. Then again, to Zionist Israel no Palestinians, even newborns, are innocent.

P.S. In the video freeze frame, I’m either asleep, in deep thought, or possibly slipping into a coma. My thanks as ever to the Judge for a set of challenging questions.

Generally speaking, Americans don’t want wars (Trump’s war on Iran is deeply unpopular) and they don’t want $1.5 trillion war budgets. Sorry, you have no say here. I may be able to write critiques of disastrous wars, bloated Pentagon budgets, and kleptocratic insiders, but it doesn’t move the needle because I have no say.

This reminds me of when I wrote to my senator back in 2018 about endless wars and the military-industrial complex. The response I received is recounted in the article below.

(Re-reading my article for TomDispatch in 2018, I noted that the Trump administration was scheming for war with Iran back then, which led me to a letter I cited signed by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), warning that such a war would be catastrophic. The VIPS, professionals like Larry C. Johnson and Ray McGovern, have been proven right, but even they have no say. When it comes to the Iran War, Israel and AIPAC arguably have had the most say of all.)

Endless War and the Lack of a Progressive Critique of the Pentagon

W.J. Astore (Written in 2018)

In my latest article for TomDispatch.com, I argue the Pentagon has won the war that matters: the struggle for the “hearts and minds” of America. Pentagon budgets are soaring even as wars in places like Afghanistan continue to go poorly. Despite poor results, criticism of the Pentagon is rare indeed, whether in the mainstream U.S. media or even among so-called liberals and progressives, a point hammered home to me when I contacted my senator. Here’s an excerpt from TomDispatch; you can read my article in full here.

A Letter From My Senator

A few months back, I wrote a note to one of my senators to complain about America’s endless wars and received a signed reply via email. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that it was a canned response, but no less telling for that. My senator began by praising American troops as “tough, smart, and courageous, and they make huge sacrifices to keep our families safe. We owe them all a true debt of gratitude for their service.” OK, I got an instant warm and fuzzy feeling, but seeking applause wasn’t exactly the purpose of my note.

My senator then expressed support for counterterror operations, for, that is, “conducting limited, targeted operations designed to deter violent extremists that pose a credible threat to America’s national security, including al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), localized extremist groups, and homegrown terrorists.” My senator then added a caveat, suggesting that the military should obey “the law of armed conflict” and that the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that Congress hastily approved in the aftermath of 9/11 should not be interpreted as an “open-ended mandate” for perpetual war.

Finally, my senator voiced support for diplomacy as well as military action, writing, “I believe that our foreign policy should be smart, tough, and pragmatic, using every tool in the toolbox — including defense, diplomacy, and development — to advance U.S. security and economic interests around the world.” The conclusion: “robust” diplomacy must be combined with a “strong” military.

Now, can you guess the name and party affiliation of that senator? Could it have been Lindsey Graham or Jeff Flake, Republicans who favor a beyond-strong military and endlessly aggressive counterterror operations? Of course, from that little critical comment on the AUMF, you’ve probably already figured out that my senator is a Democrat. But did you guess that my military-praising, counterterror-waging representative was Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts?

Full disclosure: I like Warren and have made small contributions to her campaign. And her letter did stipulate that she believed “military action should always be a last resort.” Still, nowhere in it was there any critique of, or even passingly critical commentary about, the U.S. military, or the still-spreading war on terror, or the never-ending Afghan War, or the wastefulness of Pentagon spending, or the devastation wrought in these years by the last superpower on this planet. Everything was anodyne and safe — and this from a senator who’s been pilloried by the right as a flaming liberal and caricatured as yet another socialist out to destroy America.

I know what you’re thinking: What choice does Warren have but to play it safe? She can’t go on record criticizing the military. (She’s already gotten in enough trouble in my home state for daring to criticize the police.) If she doesn’t support a “strong” U.S. military presence globally, how could she remain a viable presidential candidate in 2020?

And I would agree with you, but with this little addendum: Isn’t that proof that the Pentagon has won its most important war, the one that captured — to steal a phrase from another losing war — the “hearts and minds” of America? In this country in 2018, as in 2017, 2016, and so on, the U.S. military and its leaders dictate what is acceptable for us to say and do when it comes to our prodigal pursuit of weapons and wars.

So, while it’s true that the military establishment failed to win those “hearts and minds” in Vietnam or more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, they sure as hell didn’t fail to win them here. In Homeland, U.S.A., in fact, victory has been achieved and, judging by the latest Pentagon budgets, it couldn’t be more overwhelming.

If you ask — and few Americans do these days — why this country’s losing wars persist, the answer should be, at least in part: because there’s no accountability. The losers in those wars have seized control of our national narrative. They now define how the military is seen (as an investment, a boon, a good and great thing); they now shape how we view our wars abroad (as regrettable perhaps, but necessary and also a sign of national toughness); they now assign all serious criticism of the Pentagon to what they might term the defeatist fringe.

In their hearts, America’s self-professed warriors know they’re right. But the wrongs they’ve committed, and continue to commit, in our name will not be truly righted until Americans begin to reject the madness of rampant militarism, bloated militaries, and endless wars.

Consider Trump’s words that he will make “the final determination” whether the Iran War will persist. Roughly 342 million Americans and 93 million Iranians await Trump’s decision. The decision of an egotistical narcissist who’s convinced he must always be seen to be “winning”—that all that really matters is his own self-image.

Trump, America’s de facto dictator, if not yet de jure, recently told the American people he didn’t care if the war was hurting their finances or making life more difficult for them. As Dick Cheney once said about American opposition to the Iraq War: “So?” So what? Who cares what the people think. What matters is what the dictators think.

What’s especially shameful here is mainstream media coverage, which presents Trump’s absolute power over war as completely normal—even legal.

Remember when wars were supposed to be declared only by Congress in the name of the people?

Saying when to fight, when to go to war, when to send U.S. troops into harm’s way, is the ultimate power, literally the power over life and death, and we the people, as much as I hate to say this, have accepted with little protest that Trump has total power here.

Meanwhile, the Democrats mutter something about affordability. And there’s always a Democrat or two (“the rotating villain”) in Congress who prevents any curb to Trump’s war-making authority.

Welcome to America’s shamocracy. We might be able to remove Trump’s name from the JFK Center for the Performing Arts, but we can’t remove Trump from sending U.S. troops to their deaths in an illegal war. Where’s Congress? Where’s SCOTUS? Why do they leave war-making to the whims of one greedy and power-driven man?

*****

THE LATEST NEWS

Politics

At the White House. Evan Vucci/Reuters

• Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said his agency had designed a $250 bill bearing Trump’s image. Congress would need to approve the currency.

• The Pentagon announced a $9.7 billion contract with Dell. Trump, who bought more than $1 million in Dell stock this year, stands to benefit.

• “Both parties kind of get it wrong”: Many Gen Z men who voted for Trump say they’re disappointed by his time in office. But they haven’t heard an appealing pitch from Democrats, either.

*****

So, lackeys at the Treasury Department put Trump’s face on a $250 bill to flatter his ego. Meanwhile, Trump is yet again outdoing Nancy Pelosi on stock profiteering based on insider knowledge. And Trump voters are “disappointed” by his actions, yet Democrats haven’t been able to make “an appealing pitch” to them.

How’s this for an appealing pitch? No more murderous and illegal wars, no more egotism and narcissism, and no more shameless profiteering and brazen corruption.

How difficult is it for Democrats to run against a man and a party that’s so craven and corrupt and incompetent? Oh, wait a moment, the Democrats are doing the same, just not quite as openly and unapologetically.

We truly need a political revolution in America. Why not start this July 4th?

Addendum: The Treasury needs to put Trump’s face on a $39 trillion bill and use it to pay off the national debt. Imagine how happy Trump would be with that. He could claim that only he and his image saved America from a colossal load of debt.

We’ve got to be patient and committed [in Iraq], but we’ve got to multitask … We’ve got to talk about Iran—Iran is more dangerous than Iraq—and we have got to get the job done in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

That was Rudolph Giuliani, speaking as a Republican presidential candidate in July 2007.

Back then, the saying was that everyone wants to go to Baghdad but that real men want to go to Tehran. Weirdly, neither Iran nor Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks in 2001. What those countries did have was oil—and lots of it.

The Iran obsession persists, of course, and it’s shared by both political parties. When she ran for president in 2024, Kamala Harris identified Iran as the greatest adversary the United States faced in the world.

The truth is that neither Iran nor Iraq posed a direct or imminent threat to the USA. What each country possessed was an enormous amount of oil and political leaders who didn’t want to kowtow to U.S. economic imperatives.

A joke I learned circa 1975 involving calculators (fairly new back then) remains revealing of what drives the American obsession with the Middle East. It goes like this: 142 Israelis fight 154 Arabs over 69 oil wells for 5 years. Who wins? Punch 14215469 into your calculator, multiply by 5, then invert your calculator.

The result, which was amusing when I was about twelve years old:

Shell Oil!

Of course, U.S. and British meddling in Iran dates back to 1953 with the overthrow of its democratically elected leader Mohammad Mosaddegh so that British oil interests wouldn’t be threatened by efforts to nationalize Iran’s huge oil reserves.

Which brings me back to 1975 and one of my favorite movies, Three Days of the Condor, and a little honesty about what Americans expect from the CIA. I’ve always loved the speech near the end by CIA deputy director Higgins, played memorably by Cliff Robertson:

Higgins: It’s simple economics. Today it’s oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

Joe Turner: Ask them?

Higgins: Not now - then! Ask ‘em when they’re running out. Ask ‘em when there’s no heat in their homes and they’re cold. Ask ‘em when their engines stop. Ask ‘em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won’t want us to ask ‘em. They’ll just want us to get it for ‘em!

*****

And yet, despite what Higgins says, today the US government isn’t even that effective at stealing the oil, though it is true that Shell Oil and other fossil fuel conglomerates are making a killing as oil and gas prices soar.

Addendum: Shell Oil is now Shell plc or Shell Global. Judging by the Shell quarterly dividend report from the first quarter of this year, things are looking very bright indeed:

Shell delivered strong results enabled by our relentless focus on operational performance in a quarter marked by unprecedented disruption in global energy markets… Last week we announced the acquisition of ARC Resources, accelerating our strategy by adding complementary, high-quality, low-cost liquids and gas assets that we believe will deliver value for decades to come. Today, consistent with our value driven capital allocation philosophy, we are rebalancing our shareholder distributions, with a $3 billion share buyback programme for the next 3 months and a 5% increase in the dividend, in line with our existing 40-50% of CFFO distribution policy.

Excuse the snark, but the real green energy surge, “green” as in money, remains dirty fossil fuels.

Sometimes, you hear it in military circles, e.g. a conspicuous display of gallantry, especially in battle. Medals still exist for this. But I want to focus on non-military settings.

I checked a few dictionaries to remind myself of what gallantry is supposed to consist of. Its first sense is captured by words like nobility, bravery, spirited, courageous, intrepid, valiant, and dauntless. Its second and related sense focuses on chivalry, notably toward women, and includes related words like courtly, dashing, considerate, kindly, politeness, and tactfulness.

A synonym I really liked was lion-hearted.

“Gallant” suggests bravery and strength tempered by nobility and grace. It may include an attentiveness (and attractiveness) toward women based on gentlemanly behavior. A habit of paying respectful attention.

In a “Look-at-me!” world, a me-first one, a world of chest-thumpers and braggarts, gallantry as a quality is increasingly in decline.

MAGA: Make America Gallant Again. Make us noble and brave, polite and tactful, fine and stately, considerate and gentle.

Why did Trump and his crew focus on “great”? Is it because “great” is so non-specific, so much like Barack Obama’s “hope” and “change,” words that can mean almost anything to anyone?

America, let’s make our country gallant again, gallant like George Washington, with his ethic of public service and his willingness to walk away from power after two successful terms as president with his head held high and his ideals intact.

Let’s revive gallantry and applaud those who display those qualities. Courage tempered by grace — we could use a lot more of that in America.

What are we to make of this? I take Gabbard at her word that she’s deeply concerned about her husband’s health. But the announcement of her decision, on a Friday just before a long weekend, was meant to minimize media attention. For months now, Gabbard has been sidelined within the Trump administration. Her testimony that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear bomb put her at odds with Zionist hawks led by Bibi Netanyahu, who’ve been warning of an “imminent” nuclear device for the last forty years. The President himself declared he didn’t care what Gabbard thought about Iran and its nuclear ambitions; over time, it appears Gabbard was shunted aside as not sufficiently hawkish about Iran.

Which is a shame. Gabbard has shown herself to be an unconventional politician, somewhat of a maverick, and she’s paid the price for going against the Clinton machine, which smeared her as a dupe, wittingly or unwittingly, of Putin and the Russians. It got so bad for Tulsi that people were asking her on the campaign trail in 2020 if she was a traitor to her country. Politics is a dirty business, but I think even Tulsi may have been surprised at how dirty Hillary Clinton and the DNC got with their insinuations about her motives and her patriotism.

Many are disappointed that Gabbard didn’t resign for political cause — that she didn’t quit even earlier while calling out the Iran War as illegal, immoral, counterproductive, and unnecessary. We expect leaders to have strong principles, and I wish Tulsi had spoken out strongly against the war. Often, political insiders convince themselves to go along with bad policies in the hope of mitigating the worst aspects of them. They also may fear retribution, and the Trump/MAGA machine can certainly vie with the Clinton/DNC one for viciousness against perceived apostates.

Gabbard, again, has had an interesting career, navigating the DNC when it was dominated by the Clintons and serving the second Trump administration as it’s been dominated by Zionist/evangelical hawkishness. A tell-all book by Gabbard would truly be explosive, except I’m sure whatever she might produce would be heavily redacted.

Hopefully, her support of her husband will help him through a difficult health crisis. In her opposition to regime-change wars, in her service to her country, in her willingness to take unpopular stands, Gabbard has shown personal integrity and considerable courage. She’s not perfect, far from it, but few should doubt her resilience and her ethic of service.

On the subject of Trump, we wondered how much Trump believes his own stories, his own narrative, his own lies. Among other things, Trump is a salesman of shoddy or otherwise dubious products. Off the top of my head, he’s sold golden sneakers, vodka, steaks, his own “patriotic” version of the Bible, his own sham “university,” and of course a mountain of MAGA-linked merchandise, MAGA caps being the most commonly seen. The man will sell anything anyway that he can, especially his own name. He is a shameless, a relentless, self-promoter. He is so self-centered, so me-me-me, that it boggles my mind why anyone would believe that Trump cares about them.

The latest shoddy product Trump is selling is the Iran War. When that folds or fails, perhaps a war on Cuba will be next. We get sold these “products” irrespective of their quality and regardless of whether we want or need them. As long as they’re making money for someone—especially if that someone is Trump—these shoddy wars will go on.

America is a land of consumers (including the consumption of propaganda) where war is just another business and profit center for the few at the expense of the many. At the same time, the free market is very much rigged—we get shoddy wars whether we want them or not. And whether he knows it or not, Trump is often little more than the lying pitchman for the same.