Tag: u.s. military
Why Trump's Iran Strike Hype Is Falling Flat

Why Trump's Iran Strike Hype Is Falling Flat

Whatever United States military forces may have achieved in last week's brief attack on Iranian nuclear sites — a question that will not be answered definitively anytime soon — we have learned again the most fundamental fact about the current occupant of the White House.

Under Donald Trump, the principal purpose of our military and diplomatic policies is not to enhance American national security or pursue any strategic objective. The most important goal of every U.S. action is childishly simple: to make Trump look heroic and feel powerful, no matter how pointless or destructive it otherwise proves to be.

And Americans, normally susceptible to spurious presidential appeals to nationalism and fear, seem to have noticed that Trump's little war had no plausible aim — and only put the nation in jeopardy of another ruinous "forever war."

Trump's motives in addressing Iran and its nuclear ambitions -- distorted by his unquenchable envy (and enmity) toward his predecessor Barack Obama -- have been questionable from the very moment he first stepped into the White House. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, delivered by the Obama diplomatic team and our European allies in 2015, severely restricted Iran's nuclear program.

It is now clear that Trump's withdrawal, effectively killing that agreement, led directly to the recent advances in the Iranian nuclear program, which in turn provoked Israel to mount its recent military campaign. Had the JCPOA held, as it would have with American support, there would have been no "emergency" need to blow up the Iranian nuclear sites now.

Trump himself created the crisis that he now seeks credit for ending, with his repeated claims that the munitions fired on Iran by American submarines and stealth bombers had "obliterated" the mullahs' nuclear industrial complex.

But did he end the crisis? Were those nuclear facilities and uranium stockpiles "totally destroyed"? Or did the Iranians somehow preserve their nuclear options in case of a military attack?

It would be surprising if they had failed to do so, since Trump — always childishly demanding global attention — foolishly boasted well in advance of his intentions to hit Iran. Having at first claimed that the U.S. would not get embroiled in Israel's military campaign, and indeed that he had tried to discourage it, the president grew jealous of the Israel Defense Forces' apparent success and determined to glom some glory for himself.

American intelligence agencies later told journalists that the biggest operational security problem in our Iran operations was Trump's egomaniacal posturing. The Iranians assuredly took notice and moved as much of their equipment and enriched uranium stockpiles as possible to secret locations.

Merely asking how it all transpired — and how it might have affected the successful "obliteration" of the Iranian nuclear program — was enough to enrage not only Trump but his national security team. The journalists who reported an initial bomb damage assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which found that the air raids had only set the Iranian drive back by "a few months," provoked a hysterical response from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. He accused news outlets that revealed the DIA report of lacking patriotism and respect for the armed services, personally berated journalists, including a former Fox News colleague, and immediately ordered a leak investigation.

What Hegseth didn't do — and what Trump didn't do — was deny that the DIA had issued that damning report. Instead, they instantly and rather suspiciously produced a contradictory CIA estimate that reinforced Trump's original claims. Meanwhile, European intelligence agencies and other sources have indicated that, at the very least, Iran has kept a substantial stockpile of enriched uranium, enough to produce several weapons in the future.

When that will be, we cannot know for certain. What we do know is that the military attack on Iran, occurring even as the U.S. was supposedly negotiating with its leadership, has spurred that country and others to build the world's most dangerous weapons as quickly as possible.

Perhaps that is why nearly every poll now shows that Americans strongly disapprove of Trump's Iran misadventure. Foreign leaders have no reason to believe anything Trump says, and neither do we.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism(St. Martin's Press, 2024).

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Trump's Fox News Obsession Driving US Toward War With Iran

Trump's Fox News Obsession Driving US Toward War With Iran

President Donald Trump appears to be careening toward a U.S. military strike on Iran as current and former Fox News figures — from posts on the network’s airwaves, elsewhere in the right-wing media ecosystem, and within his administration — fight to influence his decision.

For years, Trump's obsession with the Fox universe has driven policy decisions, administration staffing, and countless stream-of-consciousness social media posts. Now, the network will have an outsized role in determining America's potential involvement in a spiraling regional military conflict.

The George W. Bush administration spent months “following a meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein” before finally launching that war in March 2003. That strategy — based on cooked intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction dishonestly sold to American people — resulted in the deaths of more than 4,000 U.S. service members and more than 200,000 Iraqi civilians as well as a massive financial cost.

Two decades later, Trump seems poised to join Israel's attack on Iran, with the stated goal of preventing that country from acquiring nuclear weapons that the U.S. intelligence community says it is not seeking. The president on Tuesday threatened to assassinate Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, bragged that the U.S. is involved in securing the airspace over that country, and called for “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,” all while the U.S. military is marshalling forces in the region. And that push has come with little effort to convince the public, which overwhelmingly opposes U.S. military involvement in Iran, of the necessity of such a course.

The Fox propaganda engine is driving this chaotic process. Trump reportedly became more interested in U.S. military action because he saw favorable Fox coverage of Israel’s initial attacks on Iran, while more recent segments have stressed the importance of U.S. involvement. Fox host Mark Levin and his former colleague Tucker Carlson are waging a scorched-earth battle for Trump’s ear, with Levin apparently gaining the advantage. And top administration officials with roles in a potential conflict — including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth — are in their positions in the first place because Trump approved of their previous work at the network.

It remains unclear what the president will decide to do and how any of it will play out for the country and the world. What seems likely, however, is that the Trump administration will undertake its Iran policy with the same inconsistency that characterized his tariff policy; the same low quality of staff work that got a reporter added to a text chain where top officials shared info about a forthcoming U.S. strike; the same lack of care for the lives of foreigners that has already killed hundreds of thousands of people; and the same disinterest in following the law on display in his deportation plan.

And Trump’s action, regardless of what it is, will receive sycophantic cheers from his propagandists at Fox.

The Fox-Trump feedback loop is powering Iran policy

A June 17 New York Times story detailing how Trump had shifted from trying to restrain an Israeli attack on Iran while overseeing negotiations with its leaders to supporting Israel’s strike and considering U.S. involvement highlights the role of a key player: Fox.

“When he woke on Friday morning, his favorite TV channel, Fox News, was broadcasting wall-to-wall imagery of what it was portraying as Israel’s military genius,” the Times reported. “And Mr. Trump could not resist claiming some credit for himself.”

Under typical circumstances, a U.S. president shifting the nation’s military posture based on a few cable news segments would sound fantastical. But under Trump, major aspects of federal policy regularly turn on what he is hearing from his favored TV personalities. Fox hosts understand their influence and regularly seek to influence Trump’s decisions, both through their programs and in private conversations with the president.

Fox’s hosts thus wield incredible power over Trump’s actions. And in recent days, those figures have been using their platforms to tell the president that U.S. strikes on Iran are both important and likely to succeed with little cost. They know which buttons to push and are banging on them as hard as they can.

“Trump's favorite TV network has staked out the pro-war position – and it isn't making as much room for debate,” CNN’s Brian Stelter reported on June 18. “Guest after guest on Fox has played to Trump's ego — simultaneously praising the president and pushing for US intervention through his television screen.”

Carlson and Levin go to war

Carlson and Levin are waging a scorched-earth campaign against each other, with each presenting their own views as the true America First position as they seek to influence Trump’s decision-making.

Carlson, a proponent of the right’s white nationalist and Holocaust-denying wing who tends to oppose foreign military interventions in favor of attacks on domestic enemies, claims that bombing Iran would “shut down Trump’s three core promises.” Levin, a staunch advocate for deploying U.S. power in the Middle East, argues that American intervention would be consistent with Trump’s policy of “peace through strength.”

Levin currently appears to have the upper hand. Politicoreported last week that Levin made his case to Trump directly at a June 4 meeting:

During a private lunch with the president at the White House last Wednesday, conservative talk show host Mark Levin told Trump that Iran was days away from building a nuclear weapon, an argument Trump’s own intelligence team has told the president is not accurate, according to an intelligence official as well as another Trump ally familiar with the matter. Levin urged Trump to allow the Israeli government to strike Iranian nuclear sites, which Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would torpedo the diplomacy.

Carlson subsequently lashed out at Levin and other Fox figures whom he (accurately) described as “warmongers.” He wrote on June 13:

The real divide isn’t between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians. The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it — between warmongers and peacemakers. Who are the warmongers? They would include anyone who’s calling Donald Trump today to demand air strikes and other direct US military involvement in a war with Iran. On that list: Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rupert Murdoch, Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson. At some point they will all have to answer for this, but you should know their names now.

Levin replied, calling Carlson “a reckless and deceitful propagandist” who “promote[s] antisemitism and conspiracy nuts” (all obviously true). He added: “It doesn’t occur to you that your supposed sources are disloyal to POTUS. You and they are undermining him and you just declared your break from the President.” In a series of subsequent posts, he denigrated his former colleague as “Chatsworth Qatarlson” and accused him of “rooting for Iran” and “trashing our president.”

Carlson responded in a June 16 appearance on his ally Stephen Bannon’s program in which he claimed that Levin is “terrible on TV” (true) with a screen presence reminiscent of “listening to your ex-wife scream about alimony payments” (sexist but at least directionally correct). He further claimed that Levin’s appearances on Fox demonstrate that what the network is “doing is what they always do, which is just turning up the propaganda hose to full blast and just trying to, you know, knock elderly Fox viewers off their feet and make them submit to where you want them to” (extremely accurate).

Trump, for his part, weighed in on Sunday, June 15, saying of Carlson’s critique of his Iran policy, “I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen.” In a Monday night post, he described Carlson as “kooky” (another accurate characterization), adding, “IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!” Levin swiftly highlighted both comments on social media.

Levin took a curtain call on Hannity’s Fox show on Tuesday night, screaming, “You’re either a patriotic American who’s gonna get behind the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, or you’re not!”

Many key administration roles are filled by former Foxers

Several senior administration officials who will play key roles in advising Trump on whether and how to conduct military strikes and then implement that policy are wildly unqualified people who got their jobs because the president liked their Fox appearances. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are among the 23 former Fox employees Trump has appointed to his second administration.

Gabbard, a former Fox contributor from the Carlson wing of the MAGA movement who lacks “the typical intelligence experience of past officeholders,” said in congressional testimony earlier this year that it was the conclusion of the intelligence community that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”

Trump, however, apparently preferred Levin’s lunchtime claim that Iran was actually days away from a bomb, telling reporters on June 17, “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having a weapon.” The president, Politicoreported Tuesday, “has increasingly mused about nixing Gabbard’s office completely” and, according to one source, “thinks she ‘doesn’t add anything to any conversation.’”

Trump promoted Hegseth from Fox & Friends Weekend co-host to the leadership of the Pentagon, and based on his past Fox commentary, he is likely a voice in favor of military action. His early leadership of the Defense Department is not encouraging for how such action might go — he has driven off his senior staff, discussed U.S. strikes in private texts that subsequently leaked, and oversaw a costly and ultimately ineffective campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Other relevant former Foxers include Mike Huckabee, the former network host Trump installed as U.S. ambassador to Israel, and Tammy Bruce, the former Fox contributor currently ensconced as the State Department spokesperson.

No matter what happens, this much is certain: A bunch of current and former Fox News employees are essentially deciding whether the U.S. is going to war.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Uh Oh: Big Baby With Scary Big Toy Will Bomb-Bomb-Bomb Iran

Uh Oh: Big Baby With Scary Big Toy Will Bomb-Bomb-Bomb Iran

Time-travel with me now, if you will, to the year 2002. I guess you could describe it as a “while the world slept” moment on December 12 of that year when CNN reported, “U.S. troops get in place in the Gulf.” The report ticked off the steps that were already being taken: Central Command leader Gen. Tommy Franks moved to the As Saliyah base in Qatar. He airlifted into place a modular command and control headquarters. Remember the briefing room with the three flat-screen TV’s that looked so sexy when the invasion began in March? That was part of the modular command center.

Three thousand troops were already in place in Qatar. The Third Infantry Division, about 30,000 strong, was conveniently “training” in Kuwait. In January, the first 25,000 combat troops in the U.S. began their mass movement to Kuwait.

I’m taking the time to remind you of that ignominious time in our not-too-distant past because another version of that sort of build-up is already underway in Europe and the Middle East. Over the weekend, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth moved three dozen U.S. tanker aircraft to bases in Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom The tankers are used to refuel U.S. fighter jets and bombers, and can also be used to refuel Israeli aircraft. There have now been reports that military assets – we don’t know exactly what they are, but they could be aircraft, troops, vessels, tanks, and other heavy equipment – have been “deployed” to the Middle East.

On March 17, 2003, President George Bush, in a televised address to the nation, demanded that Saddam Hussein and his two sons, Uday and Qusay “surrender” and leave Iraq. He gave them a 48-hour deadline.

Today, in a modern twist on the dusty old tradition of a presidential address from the Oval Office, Trump took to his Truth Social account and threatened the life of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump posted. “But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.”

Is any of this starting to seem familiar? Imaginary threatened Iranian missiles that will be “shot” at “American soldiers?” Where, may I ask, are these American soldiers that Iranian missiles might be fired at? One of the general MSM round-up stories this afternoon casually said the U.S. already has 40,000 soldiers in the Middle East, without identifying their locations. I would guess Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, probably a few still in Syria, and I’m sure we’ve got some in Egypt and scattered around on small bases elsewhere.

Hey, we put them there, right? Iran is pissed off enough that they are rocketing Israel and sending armed attack drones. If they get pissed off at us, they’ll be firing at U.S. targets, which would logically include American military bases, including air force and naval stations, and Army bases that have been in Kuwait since…you guessed it…since we liberated that country from Iraqi occupation with Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

Are you detecting a trend here? The U.S. supplies Israel with about $3 billion a year in military hardware and other aid with basically no limits on how it should be used. Trump has been engaged in alleged “negotiations” with Iran over its nuclear program – which are necessary only because he cancelled the treaty that was already in place.

Trump’s negotiator is a New York real estate guy he’s friendly with, Steve Witkoff, who has owned inexpensive buildings in lower Manhattan, Washington Heights, and the Bronx through a firm called Stellar Management. He also owns commercial property and hotels like the Park Lane and high rise apartment buildings in Tribeca and Philadelphia, Chicago, and Dallas. So Iranian negotiators, who are not dummies, know that they are sitting down to discuss the future of their nuclear program with a guy who oversees the installations of new toilets in apartments and supervises the changing of sheets and swabbing out bathrooms at hotels.

At least when Bush was threatening Saddam Hussein, he was sending people like Colin Powell to the U.N. and he had a Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who was serving in that job a second time. Rumsfeld was an asshole, but at least he wasn’t a sexual abuser tattooed cartoon like Hegseth who challenges troops to pushup contests to show them how macho he is.

But why am I even talking about Hegseth? It doesn’t matter that Trump has a real estate buddy he met in a deli in New York negotiating for him, and a Secretary of Defense who has paid off a woman to keep her mouth shut about the night he sexually assaulted her in a hotel room. It doesn’t even matter that his secretary of state is a man he once called “Little Marco” to his face on national television.

The only one who matters is Donald Trump, and he's having so much fun, he can barely stand it. He’s bubbling over threatening Iranians and making demands. He is so blasé about Israel’s attacks on Iran and the issue behind them, nuclear weapons, Trump even took the time last night to angrily tell reporters that he’s not going to call Minnesota Governor Tim Walz about the Democratic members of the state House and Senate who were killed and wounded by one of his supporters. Why isn’t it important to call Tim Walz? Because according to Trump, Walz is “slick” and “whacked out.”

“Why would I call him?” Trump said on Air Force One, on his way back to the White House so he could meet with his highly qualified national security team this afternoon in the Situation Room. “The guy doesn’t have a clue. He’s a, he’s a mess. Why waste time?”

Trump clearly thinks the people on the other end of his negotiations over nuclear weapons don’t follow the news in the United States, and don’t have anyone studying the person with whom, ultimately, they are dealing.

Oh, damn, I’m doing it again. I’m comparing the situation with Donald Trump getting ready to attack Iran with people who, while they made some terrible decisions based on some terrible information about Iraq, were at least fucking sane.

See, that’s the problem we’re having. It’s almost impossible to cover what’s going on – which is that we are apparently preparing to start a war with Iran – without involuntarily sanewashing the madman who’s making the decisions. That’s what it’s called, sanewashing, a whole word they came up with just to deal with Donald Trump.

We can’t treat this man as if he is a rational actor. A rational human being, a man with actual human feelings, would not call the governor of Minnesota childish names right after his state has had two of its political figures shot by someone who had a list of 45 more Democrats he wanted to assassinate. A rational actor would not post on a social media platform a demand that the leader of a country with which we are not at war -- yet – unconditionally surrender.

To whom? is the question that should be asked. Why would the Supreme Leader of Iran surrender to Donald Trump when the U.S. hasn’t fired a single bullet at them or dropped a single bomb. The Congress hasn’t declared war or even passed one of those lame-ass “authorization of use of force” thingees.

The answer is as obvious as the depressed look on Trump’s face watching his big military parade pass his reviewing stand on Saturday, and it was occurring to him that his big celebration of self wasn’t going at all the way he had planned. The soldiers in the tanks were waving to girls in the stands. The marching formations were out of step, looking like they hadn’t taken the whole thing seriously enough to practice marching. The crowds looked like tourists out for the afternoon in Washington D.C. with nothing else to do. The bleachers weren’t even half full. Everybody watching on TV could see the whole thing was a bust. And elsewhere, on the phone ever-present in his pocket, Trump could see that the rest of the country was in the streets, millions of them, having the time of their lives telling him to go fuck himself.

The Iranians had to be watching all this on television and going oh shit as the second night of Israeli rockets hit them. Look at Trump’s face. He is not happy. That is not good for us.

So here we are, dear readers, after the weekend that Donald Trump saw how enormous his opposition is, and how organized, and how peaceful, for crying out loud. He’s mad as hell, and as luck would have it, he has a way to show it. He can drop the world’s biggest bomb that isn’t a nuke on Iran, and nobody can stop him. All the libs, all the newspaper editorial pages, all his MAGA allies who are beginning to understand the truth about “American First.” It means, as ever, Trump first.

All those guns on those tanks on Saturday weren’t loaded, but goddamn it, he can order up some B-2 bombers and load them up with some Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs, and he’ll show them!

We can come right out and admit it: We have a big, angry child in the White House, and he’s throwing a tantrum, and the only thing that will make him happy is starting a war in the Middle East.

Man, are we in for it.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. He writes every day at luciantruscott.substack.com and you can follow him on Bluesky @lktiv.bsky.social and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter.

'Fascinating' GOP Split Over Impending Tik-Tok Ban

'Fascinating' GOP Split Over Impending Tik-Tok Ban

Republican senators are at odds over the looming ban of the social media website, TikTok, expected to take place Sunday, January 19 if the US Supreme Court doesn't stop or delay it.

Punchbowl News reporter Andrew Desiderio wrote via X on Thursday, "Fascinating political dynamics on TikTok. [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer (D-NY) just now backed a delay in implementation of the TikTok forced divestiture law that Congress passed last year, effectively siding with Trump. [Senator] Tom Cotton (R-AR) , Intel chair and No. 3 in leadership, blocked an effort to extend the deadline yesterday."

Desiderio also noted that after Senator [Ed] Markey (D-MA) attempted to extend the deadline, Cotton said: "Let me be crystal clear: there will be no extensions, no concessions, and no compromises for TikTok. ByteDance and the Chinese Communists had plenty of time to make a deal."

The Punchbowl News reporter added that he "asked [Senator Marco] Rubio (R-FL) last week about [President-elect Donald] Trump’s posture on TikTok," and found that the GOP lawmaker changed his position on the matter.

"Rubio is about to be secretary of State and was Congress’ loudest critic of TikTok & the national security risks associated with it," Deseterio wrote via X.

"If I’m confirmed as secretary of State, I’ll work for the president," Rubio said.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World