Tag: pete hegseth
Who's Afraid Of Graham Platner? Not Maine Voters Who Lifted Him To A Big Victory

Who's Afraid Of Graham Platner? Not Maine Voters Who Lifted Him To A Big Victory

Back in the fall of 2020, when I wasn’t phone banking for Joe Biden, I was making calls into Maine on behalf of Sara Gideon from my pandemically locked-down home in western Massachusetts. You probably don’t remember Sara Gideon, but she was speaker of the Maine House of Representatives. Elected in 2016, she was an effective counterweight to the governor, Tea Partier Paul LePage, until Janet Mills was elected in 2018. And in 2020 she decided to run against….Sen. Susan Collins!

The result was astonishing: Joe Biden won the state of Maine by nine points, and Collins won her race by almost nine points. In other words, Gideon ran 18 points behind a winning presidential candidate in her own party. It was ticket splitting on an epic scale—and something that was showing up in the phone banking. Maine Democrats (when you phone bank, you always call voters from the party you are working for) would unhesitatingly say they were voting for Biden, but when I asked about Gideon there would be a silence. Then, I would hear some version of: “Susan Collins is from Maine—and Sara Gideon isn’t.”

Which was true. Gideon was born and raised in Rhode Island, had only lived in Maine for 16 years, and was de facto unable, in the eyes of too many Maine voters, to represent their state’s true interests. It was more important to them that Susan Collins (who is, I have heard, also terrific at constituent services) was a lifetime citizen of Maine than it was that she was a Republican, or that she had voted to confirm an anti-choice associate justice of the Supreme Court who had been accused of sexual assault by at least three women.

This should teach you at least two things: Maine Democrats make up their own minds, they think of their state as more like a nation within a nation, and they are more than willing to put the kind of bad behavior that would sink, say, a New York politician, in context.

In other words, if journalists and Democrats from other states seem to fear Graham Platner—lifetime Mainer, a veteran with four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan under his belt, oysterman, and currently under fire for a variety of sins in his private life—as the candidate to oppose incumbent Republican Susan Collins, Maine voters don’t. Platner won that nomination yesterday with nearly three-fourths of the vote, an even wider margin than many polls had indicated.

For those of you who have not been following the story, the Platner controversy has mostly revolved around what we might normally categorize as free speech that is also, to many of us, repulsive. In October 2025, a team from Politico uncovered a series of deleted Reddit posts in which Platner had variously labeled himself a communist, declared that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice,” and mused about violently fighting fascists (by which, let’s be clear, he meant the Trump administration.) Then there was the Totenkopf (or “death’s head”) tattoo, commonly associated with Nazis, that he acquired in Croatia on leave from the Marines, and had to have covered up.

Now, there are women who have come forward to say that Platner, who has admitted to being treated for severe PTSD, was volatile and frightening when they were allegedly in an intimate relationship. According to Lyndsey Fifield, a Republican political operative who has spent her life working to bring MAGA to fruition, Platner was

“cavalierly contemptuous” of women, adding that his offensive online posts “reminded me of just how much he hated women.” In a 2016 diary entry, she described him as “the most toxic literally abusive man on earth who destroyed my life.”
In the article, Fifield alleged that Platner frequently grabbed her by the shoulders and once yanked her out of a taxi by her wrist. The article continued: “During one argument, she recalled, he twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn’t get out, telling her to remain there until she was ‘calm’.”
The Times noted that Platner “strongly disputes” any claims of physical intimidation or altercations, and said it could not independently corroborate Fifield’s account of them.
Fifield further recalled that Platner would sharpen an axe while watching TV, and left an AR-15 lying around in his Washington apartment. She said he described women as “hatchet wounds”, a crude reference to female anatomy, and repeatedly asserted: “If anybody ever broke in here, I would rape them,” adding that this would not be in “a sexual way, not in a gay way”.
Fifield told the paper: “He was like, I would rape them to show them that I’m dominant.”
Fifield also cast doubt on Platner’s claim that he was unaware that his tattoo was a Nazi symbol until it became the center of controversy last year. “After all, she said, he had taught her the word for it years earlier, referring to it as ‘my Totenkopf’,” the Times reported.

OK, now you know everything. Everything, that is, except why Fyfeld—a well-paid professional woman who presumably had her own money lots of options, and works for a party that is chronically casually contemptuous of women and riddled with Nazis—stayed with Platner beyond that first scary incident, or after she saw the Nazi tattoo, referred to her vulva as a wound, and learned that he kept an ax in the apartment in case raping the intruders did not deter them sufficiently.

She stayed in that relationship for two years.

We have learned that he was serially unfaithful to his girlfriends, a real shocker, since almost a quarter of married men and a quarter of unmarried men, admit to infidelity, and we have a thrice-married President who hired a sex worker less than four months after his third wife gave birth.

Yet another accuser brings us the breathless information that she told Platner not to come over, but he got really drunk and came over anyway and yelled at her. Is this where we point out that the current Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has an ex-wife who hid in a closet when he was in drunken rages and gave her friends a “safe word” that she would use if she believed her life was in danger?

If we have lowered the bar on male violence to the Hegseth standard, or the Trump standard (convicted by a jury of sexual assault, and accused by his ex-wife of beating and raping her), or the Representative Corey Mills standard (dating two women while still married, becoming engaged to one of them, and engaging in sketchy international arms deals), Graham Platner should not be sending anyone, in either party, to the fainting couch.

I want to repeat, in case you rushed through that block quote: the Platner campaign “strongly disputes” that Platner attacked Fyfeld physically, and the campaign has not disputed a great many other things which, for some people, seem to fall under the category of being a “bad boyfriend.” Platner points to PTSD, and a massive amount of self-medicating, as the trigger for being a serial cheater, shit poster, and generally incoherent person for many years during and after his military service.

Honestly, this makes sense to me. If it doesn’t make sense to you, you have never known someone who came out of a theater of war broken by the experience and needing to be healed. Not every veteran does, but some do. That doesn’t make them bad, sick, or scary people—a caricature that I thought we had disposed of after the Vietnam war. But it is what military service can produce—that is, if you are not Vice President JD Vance and spent your tour abroad manning a fax machine in the Green Zone.

The storm that has descended on Platner is profoundly cynical, driven by paid Republican operatives who insinuate he is a John Rambo waiting to happen, and journalists unable to resist a juicy story about Democratic Party dysfunction. The Platner crisis is also a perfect example of prominent Democrats wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They claim to want candidates who are military veterans, regular guys with regular guy experiences, who will win over other regular working-class guys? Well maybe, just maybe, regular guy experiences aren’t very nice, particularly when they involve four tours of combat duty in unwinnable, horrendously violent wars fought for the benefit of Halliburton and Erik Prince.

I mean, aside from the well-documented fact that the military has very high rates of domestic violence, what do people exactly think goes on when someone who has dedicated his youth to being professionally violent has to deal with everyday strains and stresses?

But instead of having this conversation, or encouraging Platner to have it, too many Democrats have been playing the frantic short game. Up until Tuesday's primary, they were reminding us that Janet Mills is still on the ballot! Maybe, they hoped, she would prove more popular than she was when she dropped out! Or maybe Platner could just resign his candidacy to someone voters do not know and played no role in picking, because that worked so well in the 2020 presidential!

By contrast, Republican operatives have been playing the long game. They didn't care whether Platner won the primary, any more than they care about the Nazi thing, or the violence thing, or the infidelity/misogyny thing. Instead, they are betting that either he will win the primary, and that they can damage him enough that out of state donors who do care about those things will turn away from him; or that Janet Mills will replace him, and they can batter her with endless ads about how she wants your little girl to lose her swimming scholarship to a big, hairy man.

Do you think I am a bad feminist for not caring that a male Senate candidate who has treated women badly? In fact, I do care about women being treated badly, very much, but I am not sure how we got to the point where we had to believe all accusations made by all women in all circumstances. Remember former Biden aide Tara Reade? That’s right—the sexual assault accuser who now lives in Moscow as a guest of Vladimir Putin?

That said, it doesn’t matter whether I am, or am not, on board with Graham Platner, whether I am a good or a bad feminist. Why? Because I don’t live or vote in Maine and neither do you. Nor, for that matter, do any of the op-ed columnists for any of the national newspapers I read, live or vote in Maine. No one who votes in Maine cares whether we in the other 49 states think Graham Platner has the “character” to be a Senator.

Nor should they. It’s their election, and if we want Maine on board with winning back the Senate, let’s try respecting that and not derailing the candidate Maine Democrats prefer by an overwhelming margin..

Maybe I am a bad feminist for appreciating Platner's victory yesterday, but I don’t think so. I think I am a realistic feminist, one who would like to see transgender people not used as punching bags, women dying in hospital parking lots because they are losing a baby and some idiot hears a heartbeat, poor people getting their SNAP benefits back, medical research restarted, not having new evidence every day that Trump and his cronies are looting the government, or knowing that hard-working immigrants leave for work every day wondering if they will see their children that night.

These are my current feminist goals. All of them mean winning the Senate back: Susan Collins is vulnerable as hell, and the polling suggests that Graham Platner can beat her. If that means supporting a man with a difficult past, one that allegedly includes saying gross things about women and engaging in a peculiarly 21st century form of online marital infidelity?

I can handle it.

Claire Potter is a political historian who taught at the New School for Social Research. She is a contributing editor to Public Seminar and wrote the popular blog Tenured Radical from 2006 through 2015. Please consider subscribing to Political Junkie, her Substack newsletter.

Reprinted (and slightly updated) with permission from Political Junkie.

Hegseth

Amid Failing War, Pete Hegseth Is Forever Seeking Masculine Validation

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump surveyed his top military brass on the prospect of making war in Iran. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine urged caution, presciently predicting that a ramped-up campaign against Iran could lead its leaders to close the Strait of Hormuz. However, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s self-styled “Secretary of War,” jumped at the prospect of such a conflict.

“Pete, I think you were the first one to speak up,” Trump recently recalled at a press event. “And you said, ‘Let’s do it, because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.’”

Americans join the military for any number of reasons: to serve their country, gain economic stability, or simply join a community. For Hegseth, a thirst for martial victory and a desire for a masculine metamorphosis seemed to surpass all else.

Much to Hegseth’s chagrin, however, his career as an Army officer corresponded to a series of distinctly failed military campaigns. After graduating from Princeton in 2003, he deployed to two doomed military locales — Afghanistan and Iraq — and then relentlessly defended the Pentagon’s occupation of parts of those places in essays, speeches, and, ultimately, as a weekend host on Fox News. While Hegseth’s rhetoric on those wars long reflected mainstream Republican talking points — papering over chaos and death in the Middle East and beyond with pledges that stable democracies were close at hand — his zeal indicated something deeper: a desperation, it seemed, to wring some sort of personal validation from his time in uniform.

“The rank and file, and even some of the officers, have accepted the gravity of the war’s failures,” Adam Weinstein, a Marine Corps veteran and deputy director for Middle East policy at the Quincy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank focused on peace and diplomacy, told me, speaking of Iraq and Afghanistan. “There’s a deep sense of sacrifice and loss for nothing. And that can lead to fatalistic beliefs, it can lead to Islamophobia. In its healthier form, it can lead to questioning the principles of interventionism and the U.S. foreign policy establishment.”

Hegseth, for his part, chose to totally avoid any personal or geopolitical reckoning. Once the Global War on Terror became politically untenable to defend, he cast about for excuses that wouldn’t implicate his own career in the military. Rather than zero in on tactical or intelligence failures, his rhetoric took a dark turn, increasingly inflected by Islamophobia, misogyny, and a distinctly toxic version of masculinity.

As his profile rose, Hegseth argued ever more forcefully that the Pentagon was weak-willed, insufficiently lethal, and overrun by incompetent and cowardly leaders, many of them women or minorities who (in his eyes) had been unfairly promoted. His proposed remedy was as blunt and dense as his diagnosis: America simply needed to fight harder in the Middle East until the mission was accomplished and “Islamic extremism” was eliminated. As one of his former co-workers told me, “I never got the feeling that he wanted to abandon the Middle East.”

I asked Weinstein if, during his own 2012 deployment to Afghanistan, he saw Islamophobia bubbling below the surface. “It was right on the surface,” he responded. “But what do you think the World War II generation was saying about the Japanese? Dehumanization is a natural outgrowth of war.”

“If You Want Something, You Go After It”

As a boy growing up in Minnesota, Hegseth appeared to be a perfect version of the American male. He was religious, athletic, well-spoken, and remarkably handsome. He was ashamed, however, of his self-perceived softness. “I didn’t get in fights as a kid and shied from confrontation because, frankly, I was scared of it,” he wrote in his 2016 book In the Arena, Good Citizens, a Great Republic, and How One Speech Can Reinvigorate America . In it, he went on to hail his father, Brian, for his “integrity” and “Scandinavian work ethic,” before evincing thinly veiled resentment for not having been reared effectively in the masculine art of aggression. “My father was — and is — an incredible man,” he reflected, “but confrontation isn’t necessarily his forte.”

Military service, Hegseth figured, would imbue him with some much needed and previously missing manliness. It was also his best path to class mobility and prestige. When it came time for college, he applied to West Point, America’s most prestigious service academy, and Princeton, where he was gunning for a ROTC scholarship. He got into both schools and chose the latter, touching down on its verdant New Jersey campus in 1999.

In deciding on Princeton, Hegseth launched himself on a path eerily paralleling that of another Minnesota native of a previous era, novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald. Both of them were working-class lads who attended Princeton, where they bristled at the elitism while craving its validation. Both developed a writing voice on campus and then joined the Army. Both also struggled with the bottle and with women, though Fitzgerald, unlike Hegseth, was somewhat reflective about his vices. He initially called his first novel The Romantic Egotist (later, This Side of Paradise). It followed a handsome, middle-class Princeton man whose greed and social ambition inhibited his ability to find true love. Hegseth himself expressed a similar ambition in a 2015 interview: “If you want something, you go after it — you’re willing to sleep a little less, put up with more, put up with a little insanity and do things you don’t want to do.”

In a widely read 1927 essay on his alma mater, Fitzgerald asserted that Princeton men “resent any attempt at analysis.” Hegseth also did his best to make such analysis impossible. At Princeton, he was deemed a man with “many faces,” loudly endorsing the Iraq war and attacking feminist groups on campus (even if, in quieter moments, he showed a capacity for nuance and kindness).

One of his former professors has pointed out that Hegseth’s current persona and his Princeton one “don’t fit.” Part of the disconnect stems from the fact that his puffed-up, bellicose military posturing in the Trump era doesn’t match either his Ivy League education or his actual service record. Hegseth came away from the war in Iraq with a Bronze Star that, it’s worth noting, was issued “without valor.” (It was, in short, a lesser version of the medal that, according to the Washington Post, was “issued somewhat liberally” during the War on Terror years. Some enlisted personnel joked that such a decoration was little more than a “participation trophy” for needy officers.)

Hegseth’s award citation was indeed dry and formulaic, chock-full of the soaring platitudes then used by the White House to sell the American public on the disastrous war in Iraq. It asserted (in what was, historically speaking, a fantasy) that he had “contributed immeasurably to the success of building a free and democratic nation for the citizens of Iraq.”

In reality, the supposed heroes of Hegseth’s war were generally not pedigreed Army National Guard officers like him, but door-busting, ass-kicking Green Berets and Navy SEALs. This was largely thanks to movies like American Sniper and Zero Dark Thirty that lionized their contributions.

After returning home, Hegseth made inroads with such operators via his advocacy work at a series of astro-turf veterans groups, including the “Concerned Veterans for America” (backed by the billionaire Koch brothers), which advocates for the privatization of the Veterans Administration. As part of his duties, he embarked on a 10-city “Defend Freedom” tour in 2014. Such events featured Madison Rising, billed as “America’s most patriotic rock band,” as well as speeches from decorated military heroes and family members.

On that tour, Hegseth connected with Karen Vaughn, a Gold Star mother whose son, Aaron, a SEAL Team Six member, had been killed in Afghanistan. Vaughn told me that she supports Hegseth mostly because he listens to those who have experienced conflict up close. “His friends are the people who fought these wars,” she said. “They are not the people who sat around white linen tablecloths with glasses of wine discussing them.”

Vaughn later introduced Hegseth to Eddie Gallagher, a SEAL who ignited a simmering debate over the military’s rules of engagement when he was accused of killing civilians and fatally stabbing a wounded captive. Hegseth used the case of Gallagher and two others accused of grisly war crimes against civilians in an attempt to move the Overton window on what should be deemed acceptable rules of wartime engagement. “These are men who went into the most dangerous places on earth with a job to defend us and made tough calls on a moment’s notice,” he brashly asserted. “They’re not war criminals, they’re warriors.” Ultimately, President Trump agreed with him and reversed Gallagher’s demotion after he was acquitted of the most serious charges, while pardoning other troops who had been convicted of war crimes.

It was through this work that Hegseth earned serious credibility among that badass class of warfighters and ultimately came to embody the essential Trumpian soldier archetype of this moment: White, male, and god-fearing.

The Jerusalem Cross Secretary of War

According to 2019 Department of Defense data, approximately 70 percent of active-duty service members were Christian (and that undoubtedly hasn’t changed in the era of Donald Trump). It’s the people who look, talk, and pray like Hegseth who also seem most receptive to opposing women serving in combat roles and in favor of Islamophobic war rhetoric. “If we’re going to send our boys to fight — and it should be boys,” he wrote in his memoirs, “we need to unleash them to win. [America needs] them to be the most ruthless.”

But the United States had already sent too many boys into harm’s way in disastrous wars and its citizens were becoming exhausted by conflict. By 2013, as Hegseth’s star was rising, 53 percent of polled Americans already saw the Iraq war as a mistake. That same year, Hegseth first ventured to Jerusalem, where, in a piece penned for the National Review, he hailed “Israel’s sense of purpose.” Unlike other nations, Hegseth observed, Israel maintained “an ever-present understanding that the fragile peace they enjoy and their nation itself are preserved only through intentional, purposeful, and courageous action.”

Here was a nation that could satisfy Hegseth’s unquenched thirst for military dominance in the Arab world. And unlike the United States, which sought technocratic rationales for war, Israel had the advantage of framing everything in biblical terms. “I find myself envious,” Hegseth concluded, “of the gravity and substance of the Israelis’ task.”

He repeatedly visited Israel in the years that followed, something that helped rejuvenate his faith in both God and war. In Israel, Hegseth consulted with conservative political figures and soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces; visited military bunkers on that country’s northern border; and toured Hebron, a Palestinian city in the West Bank that Israel has targeted with attacks and settlements. He also produced a series of on-the-ground, pro-Israel documentaries for Fox News’s streaming service, including “Battle in the Holy Land,” “Battle in Bethlehem,” and “Life of Jesus.” While filming one of those projects, he first spotted a Jerusalem Cross, a symbol once used by the medieval crusaders, and had it tattooed on his chest “to show that my religion is front and center in my life.”

Hegseth’s skin would come to perfectly illustrate his signature version of hyper-aggressive Christian masculinity. His collage of body ink today includes an American flag, an assault rifle, and the words “Deus Vult” or “God wills it” — a motto from the Crusades that has been adopted by White supremacists and was seen at the deadly 2017 march in Charlottesville, Virginia. Hegseth also inked the word “kafir,” meaning “infidel” or “non-believer,” on his right bicep.

By 2016, he had come to see Israel’s success as inexorably bound to that of the United States. That January, when President Barack Obama ratified a historic nuclear deal with Iran, Hegseth saw a cowardly capitulation to a country that, he argued then, “would wipe both Israel and America off the map if it could.” During a visit to Israel that year, he pledged to an audience that the United States was forever prepared to “lock arms and shields with all of you in defense of freedom and western civilization.”

It’s this history, as much as anything, that helps explain America’s current war with Iran. In Secretary of War Hegseth, America now has a man with a bone-deep desire for national revenge, one largely animated by his poorly disguised sense of embarrassment at, and personal emasculation over, the utter failures of the wars he fought in.

These are, of course, profoundly flimsy, deeply egotistical excuses for sending American troops into harm’s way yet again. Not surprisingly, then, there have even been a series of public rejections and defections by former Trump administration figures frustrated by the conflict with Iran. The most notable of these is Joe Kent, a former counterterrorism official in the Trump administration who resigned his post, citing “no imminent threat to our nation” from that country. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe have also tacitly acknowledged that the war in Iran was not launched by an actual threat index.

As Hegseth has made clear in his words and deeds, the latest American war is largely animated by emotional factors, plus (as reporting has shown) intense pressure from Israel. Now being in charge of the Pentagon, and with a renewed opportunity to pummel the Middle East, he has dropped all institutional pretense to compassion or caution. “We are punching them while they’re down,” he recently told reporters, “which is exactly how it should be.” In practice, this has meant a brutal bombing campaign in conjunction with Israel that targeted, among many other things, a girl’s primary school and oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, acts that respectively killed children and polluted the region. Hegseth also pledged not to offer quarter to enemy combatants in violation of international law.

He certainly hopes that faith and masculine posturing alone can secure success. Absent tangible intelligence, he has taken a page out of Israel’s book by injecting religiosity across the ranks, recently promising on CBS News that “the providence of our almighty God is there protecting those troops, and we’re committed to this mission.” Asked directly if he views this conflict as a religious one, Hegseth said, “Obviously, we’re fighting religious fanatics who seek a nuclear capability in order for some religious Armageddon.”

To bolster such an atmosphere, he has hosted Pentagon prayer services involving fiery Christian nationalist pastors and a Grammy-award-winning religious singer. His department’s promotional videos have displayed Bible verses alongside military footage. Watchdogs further claimed that U.S. commanders have counseled troops that the war is fulling biblical prophecies around Armageddon. Hegseth’s fusion of strength, religion, and violence was encapsulated in a poster allegedly displayed at a U.S. military installation in recent days. It featured Jesus Christ firing a mortar round.

Hegseth’s 2024 book, The War on Warriors, further sketches out his theory for reinvigorating the military’s masculine ethos, often through half-assed aphorisms that could fit on a Ford F-350 bumper. Sprinkled in are mythical tales, most of which have Hegseth or another aggrieved White guy at their center. The military has become so warped and woke, he writes, that it has diluted standards to allow women in combat while simultaneously kicking out “good soldiers for having naked women tattooed on their arms.” In Hegseth’s eyes, of course, women should only be on the front lines if they’re naked and in ink.

Copyright 2026 Jasper Craven

Reprinted with permission from TomDispatch

Jasper Craven, an investigative journalist covering the military and veterans’ issues, is the author of the new book God Forgives, Brothers Don’t: The Long March of Military Education and the Making of American Manhood. His writing has appeared in Harper’s, Politico, The Intercept, The Boston Globe, and The New York Times. He is also a fellow at the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute.

Did We Lose Yet? Trump's Ego-Driven Iran 'Excursion' Crashes Into Reality

Did We Lose Yet? Trump's Ego-Driven Iran 'Excursion' Crashes Into Reality

“Many questions, few details in latest Iran peace proposal,” read the headline on a New York Times report Sunday. As the subhead explained, “It is too early to tell what exactly Trump and Iran have agreed to, or if they have agreed to much at all.” The article, by the way, was written by David Sanger, who Trump called “treasonous” over his clearly accurate reporting on how badly the war was going.

But, in fact, Trump’s Iran war may be over, or virtually over. America lost.

Iran may or may not agree to exercise restraint in its control over the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear program. But as Donald Trump of all people should know, agreements can be broken. At a fundamental level Trump, who began by demanding UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER and trying to impose a subservient new regime, is now slinking away, leaving Iran’s hard-liners empowered — and America’s reputation shattered.

How did that happen? America is a superpower, Iran a middle-sized regional power at best. Spending isn’t the only determinant of armed might, but even so a comparison of the two government’s military budgets is ludicrously one-sided:

US and Iran military spending 2025 Data from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Yet the Iranian regime is not only still standing, it is stronger than before. Meanwhile, Trump is running away.

Trump’s disastrous leadership isn’t the sole factor behind this debacle, although it’s a large part of the story. In my view there are four main reasons Trump’s Iran “excursion” is ending in humiliation.

First, this was a fundamentally unwinnable war.

Once the initial decapitation strike against Iran’s leadership left the regime’s hold on power intact, Operation Epic Fury became an attempt to end Iran’s threat to world oil supplies by suppressing its missiles and drones with air power. Unfortunately, as the Substack History Does You has documented, such campaigns have never worked. Allied air forces tried to stop Nazi Germany from launching V1s and V2s in World War II; they failed. During the first Gulf War, Coalition air forces devoted huge resources to an attempt to stop Iraq from launching Scud missiles; they also failed. Chasing down mobile launchers, especially in an era of cheap, abundant drones and in a huge, mountainous country like Iran, is an impossible game of whack-a-mole.

Of course, leaders who aren’t terminally arrogant and ignorant don’t start unwinnable wars in the first place.

Second, painful as this is to recognize, the U.S. military, after decades of unchallenged dominance, appears to have lost much of its edge. As Phillips O’Brien recently wrote,

The lack of thought-through US response to the technological changes we are seeing [especially in the Russia-Ukraine war] before it embarked on the Iran bombing shows how smug militaries can be—and the bigger and more powerful they think they are the more smug they tend to be.

There is far too much self-congratulation in the US about its military, a belief that US armed forces are highly professional, show initiative, are thoughtful, etc. This is a romantic vision that Americans are using now to throw all blame for the Iran failure on the Trump Administration.

That said, the Trump administration has made the degradation of the military much worse.

Pete Hegseth, the self-proclaimed Secretary of War, has carried out an unprecedented purge of military officers with impeccable reputations, with the majority of those fired Black or female. He has replaced them with political loyalists like Admiral Brad Cooper, the head of Central Command, who has in effect been running Trump’s war.

The officers who survived the purge got the message. Under Hegseth, official accounts of the war’s progress have been a stream of bombastic claims of victory and ludicrously rosy depictions of the situation on the battlefield. Less than two weeks ago Cooper was still peddling fantasies of easy victory to Congress, asserting among other things that the U.S. could easily open the Strait of Hormuz by force.

Do you believe that these delusions are only for public consumption, that Hegseth has been getting and acting on accurate information? I don’t. It’s far more likely that Hegseth and Trump have also been receiving false, optimistic reports, because nobody in the military dares to tell them the uncomfortable truth.

The sycophancy and flattery Cooper exhibited in that testimony surely reflected groupthink that has led to many bad decisions. For example, reporting by CNN, the Washington Post and the Times finds that U.S. bases and facilities have suffered a remarkable amount of damage from Iranian drone and missile strikes, with casualties and much expensive equipment and aircraft destroyed. Why wasn’t the U.S. military prepared for this possibility?

The lack of preparation clearly reflected a predetermined view that Iran would be so devastated by U.S. attacks that it would be unable to strike back. And it’s reasonable to infer that any officers who tried to warn of the dangers were treated as defeatists and silenced.

Finally, success in modern war depends crucially on out-thinking one’s enemies. But MAGA is all about deprecating hard thinking and valorizing belligerent ignorance.

On Saturday Hegseth addressed the graduating class at West Point. In war, he declared, “you can’t throw your pronouns at the enemy.” He congratulated the cadets on being “fit, not fat.” Despite humiliating failure, Hegseth still has his job — and is still asserting that eliminating DEI wins wars and that bulging biceps can beat drones.

Can America still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, or should it accept a deal that leaves us clearly worse off than we were before the war? The answer is that running away — if that is what Trump is doing — is now the right move. It’s better to accept a bad deal, one that leaves America much weaker than it was a few months ago, than to double down on a failed war. Time is not on our side: looming shortages of critical weapons, the imminent exhaustion of world oil inventories, and the lost support of our allies and the American public mean that this war needs to end soon.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.

Top Hegseth Aide Is Former Mob Lawyer Linked To Epstein And Trump Coverups

Top Hegseth Aide Is Former Mob Lawyer Linked To Epstein And Trump Coverups

Steve Bannon is our favorite felonious Epstein supervillain. He’s actually fun to talk to and has brilliant media instincts (flooding the zone with shit – his great insight – most certainly works). As the information sewer overflows, it becomes impossible to keep track of rampant abuses of power, open-air corruption and the networks that keep the sordid operation going. The shit-flood and the scoop-obsessed news cycle work together like a bomb going off and burying the witnesses.

Sometimes it pays to stop and dig around. In the age of the Epstein cover-up, it behooves us not to forget the unanswered questions.

Today we will revisit the career of Pete Hegseth’s top aide, former New York mob attorney Tim Parlatore.

Parlatore – born Timothy Payne – attended Brooklyn Law, like Trump’s better-known guard dog and personal lawyer, Acting Attorney General Todd “Whiteout” Blanche. Not Yale. Not Harvard. These guys might not be Roy Cohn, but they came up cold and hard through the same Gotham legal networks that enabled Donald Trump’s game for decades.

Parlatore got his start in criminal defense law at the knee of Bruce Cutler, mobster John Gotti’s famously combative lawyer. His first case that garnered media attention was in defense of a Marine Corps reservist and Iraq War veteran charged with animal cruelty for kicking his girlfriend’s dog. It’s not clear why he changed his last name from Payne, but a guy named “Parlatore” probably jived better with the likes of Gambino family “made man” Joseph Sclafani and Bonanno family soldier Anthony “Skinny” Santoro. (For more on Parlatore’s curious path, read national security writer Seth Hettena here.)

At the Pentagon, Parlatore has distinguished himself by drafting unconstitutional restrictions on the press while simultaneously propping up his flop-sweating former client, Pete Hegseth. He got to know the philandering, boozing Fox News host while helping settle a roofie rape accusation against him. Before that, Parlatore had won virility-obsessed Hegseth’s loyalty by successfully defending a truly psycho Navy Seal charged with war crimes in Iraq (fellow SEALs alleged that the man bragged about killing women and children and boasted of a “kill rate” of 10 to 20 people a day).

But Parlatore is not just a Pentagon macher. He is one of the top guardians Donald Trump has relied on to protect his dirtiest secrets.

Which brings us to Epstein.

Parlatore is in the Epstein files, representing the MCC guard who accompanied Epstein’s body from his jail cell to the hospital where he was pronounced dead – one of the first people to communicate with the duty guards responsible for watching over the incarcerated international trafficker.

But Parlatore also has another much deeper Epstein connection. He boarded the Trump train when post-presidential Donald needed “killer lawyers” to defend him against federal charges tied to the theft of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago. A month after taking that case, Parlatore brought Darren Indyke into his law firm – yes, the same Darren Indyke who spent decades serving as Jeffrey Epstein’s personal lawyer.

This is the sequence of events: In September 2022, Parlatore publicly defended Trump on TV after the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago; in October 2022, he hired Indyke; by November 2022, Parlatore was formally part of Trump’s legal team handling the classified documents investigation.

Parlatore later stated that he personally oversaw and organized searches for classified documents at other Trump residences. He has scoffed at reporters who find the timing and fact of his hiring Epstein’s lawyer odd. After all, he was just giving the poor guy a break.

We still don’t know what Trump took or why. The indictment charged him with 37 federal counts – later increased to 40 – for willfully retaining classified documents, conspiring to obstruct justice, and making false statements after leaving office. The details are sketchy, but alarming. Trump made off with material related to nuclear information, U.S. and foreign military capabilities, contingency attack plans, intelligence sources and methods and other highly compartmentalized national security details.

We may never find out more because a Trump-appointed Florida tool, AKA Judge Aileen Cannon, tossed the case, sealed the record, and muzzled everyone under the threat of criminal charges.

Congressional Democrats who attended a closed briefing with special prosecutor Jack Smith could only sputter hints as to what they’d seen afterward. The Trump-retained materials were among “the most protected materials held by the federal government,” including a document so sensitive that access had reportedly been limited to “only six people” in the U.S. government.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said a public hearing would have been “absolutely devastating to the president.” One box of documents had allegedly been scanned onto a Trump aide’s laptop and uploaded to the cloud, which he argued created an entirely separate set of security concerns.

Raskin also said investigators found documents “pertinent to [Trump’s] business interests,” which he pointed out, raised questions about why the records were retained in the first place.

None of this should surprise anyone. Donald Trump has never been known to leave easy money on the table – from the post-Great Recession Trump University scam to the small vendors in Atlantic City he bankrupted by stiffing them for pianos and carpets at his doomed casinos, and now the latest, “Trump phones.”

Fleecing the government is also a family tradition. Daddy Fred Trump profiteered off of World War II GI Bill construction money, the Trump Organization was found guilty of tax fraud, Donald Trump evaded federal taxes for at least a decade, and now his conflicted son is making billion dollar deals with the Pentagon.

Back to Mr. Parlatore. Now that the depth and breadth of Epstein’s international networking and backchannel connections to U.S. government agencies are becoming known, the presence of an Epsteinworld insider like Indyke in the vicinity of the stolen documents case becomes even more interesting.

Before Tim Parlatore picked him up, Indyke had reportedly been laying low in South Florida, banking multimillion dollar profits from Epstein’s trust and working as a real estate agent. Parlatore says he felt sorry for him, and that Indyke assured his benefactor that the FBI had already interviewed him and found him blameless. Unsurprisingly, that doesn’t really hold up. In fact, several years prior, a 2020 settlement with Deutsche Bank noted that Indyke withdrew $800,000 between 2013 and 2017 in $7,500 increments – an amount clearly chosen to deliberately skirt the reporting triggers that would attract attention.

Indyke has since said the money was for “meals, gifts, and gratuities,” though DOJ files suggest Epstein’s global trafficking business was peaking during those same years. Any presumption of Indyke’s ignorance further eroded as the Files revealed him running numerous shell companies for Epstein. And COURIER recently discovered that Indyke lied to the House Oversight Committee about a $3 million house he received as a gift.

Darren Indyke’s sole qualification as a lawyer for the Parlatore Law Group is a career spent managing the legal and financial affairs of a global sex trafficker with deep ties to American and foreign power networks. Indyke possesses the kind of unique “skills” and knowledge that would undeniably come in handy if and when the Epstein cover-up gets too close to Trump.

The cover-up is vast – a vault of secrets going back decades and involving some of the most powerful men in the world. Epstein knew what those secrets were worth. Trump certainly does too.

The Parlatore Law Group, with attorneys playing both sides, should be on the House Oversight Committee’s radar.

Nina Burleigh is a journalist, author, documentary producer, and adjunct professor at New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. She has written eight books including her recently published novel, Zero Visibility Possible.

Katie Chenoweth is associate professor of French at Princeton University and an investigative researcher.

Reprinted with permission from American Freakshow

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World