Diligent News: Geopolitics

The New Iran War

Eomar — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 13:27:58 GMT

I have, across many of my articles, bemoaned the warmongering government that controls this country. While Biden seemed destined to blunder into WW3 if re-elected, Trump promised us “no new wars”. The betrayal of that promise was swift, and instead of stumbling backwards into WW3 we are charging headlong toward it.

Wartime Preparedness

Not much has changed regarding the ‘reason’ for this war. You can probably read my article on the last war and swap out dates and it will match pretty well.

President Trump continues to claim we can wage war forever. However, as I have detailed previously, this does not appear to be true from a supply standpoint alone. When you factor in economic and political costs, as well as the depleted American “will for war”, this claim seems far-fetched at best.

As for the preparedness of Iran and Israel, I don’t think much has changed. Iran is dug in and has a natural fortress (read A Wider War: Iran for a recap). Israel is counting on the US to do the heavy lifting and bear the cost of the war.

The USA

Munitions

I don’t want to retype the same content from ‘America’s Waning Power’ & ‘A Wider War: Supply Chain & Munitions’, but a brief ‘refresher’ is probably due, both for newer readers and to emphasize that these issues still exist for America.

In short, as early as 2022 alarm bells began to sound, warning that the Ukraine war was consuming ‘too many munitions’ and that we cannot produce enough for that war and our own training/maintenance needs. A year later, we began subsidizing the israeli genocide circumventing congressional approval to get munitions into zionists’ hands. The specifics can be found in the two articles linked above.

The manufacturing shortage is apparently across every platform as each time I write about this problem I find a new example to use. The exact number of Tomahawk missiles we have isn’t publicly disclosed though most estimates I have come across state the number is around 4,000 [1]. For context, estimates state we used ~800 in the ‘opening salvos’ of our Iraq invasion and we purchased 68, 34 & 22 new missiles in 2023, 2024 & 2025 [2]. We fired 80 Tomahawks at Yemen in the first day, more than we bought any of these years [3]. ONE day against YEMEN consumed 2% of our Tomahawk stores. That is global stockpile, not ‘what is on one ship’, not ‘just for the Middle East’ that is for our actions across the world. In case you haven’t yet read through ‘America’s Waning Power’, if China were to invade Taiwan, it is estimated we would run out of munitions in less than a week (without all these other munition expenditures).

Carriers

I think Yemen showed us how vulnerable carriers are in modern conflicts. During the last exchange, while we thankfully didn’t see one get hit, we saw the chaos that cheap drone swarms can create. Our carrier group ended up ‘shooting down one of our planes’ and, in another instance, we were forced to maneuver so drastically a jet fell into the ocean. It was described as the most intense naval battle since WW2[4]. Yemen doesn’t have a navy and is not as well equipped as Iran.

The War so Far

America has again shown its ability to strike fast & hard. Multiple government officials have touted our ability to ‘blow things up’, highlighting the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as evidence of our success. In the first 24 hours of the war we reportedly hit 900 targets, another 300 in the subsequent 24 hours and reaching a total of 1,700 targets within 72 hours [5].

War Crimes

Included in that widely touted target list was an all-girls elementary school, seemingly hit by one of our aforementioned Tomahawk missiles [6]. The death toll is uncertain but estimates are around 180, the list of known victims and their ages is available from Middle East Eye [7]. Many of them are less than 10 years old. Trump, thinking Americans will believe anything he says, blames Iran for bombing the school. That has already been refuted by multiple corporate media sources. The next ‘defense’, if complete denial fails, will be ‘collateral damage’. At one point I might have believed that, but we have a sordid history of covering war crimes. From the genocide in Gaza to the crimes committed on Epstein’s island, far too many ‘world leaders’ have shown how little they care for the innocent and how evil they truly are.

Middle East Eye

Water War

Iran has accused the United States of attacking Desalination plants [8] and responded by attacking a desalination plant in Bahrain. Iran’s foreign minister stated “Water supply in 30 villages has been impacted. Attacking Iran’s infrastructure is a dangerous move with grave consequences. The US set this precedent, not Iran,”.

Dependency on Desalination (from Al Jazeera [8] unless noted otherwise):

UAE - 42%
Kuwait - 90%
Oman - 86%
Saudi Arabia - 70%
Israel - 75%+ [9]
Iran - 3% [10]

While, as noted by Middle East Forum, Iran may have some water issues, it seems like they are less vulnerable to targeting of water plants. The threat against water is not unnoticed by the Gulf leaders. Tensions between seem to be rising as Israel reportedly leaked ‘misleading’ information linking the UAE to strikes against Iran [11].

Food war

The Gulf states are 90% reliant on food imports, 70% of those imports came through the (now closed) Strait of Hormuz [12]. While the GCC claims they have reserves for months, the threat of scarcity & massive price increases looms. The 20 Fujairah Grain silos hold 300,000 tons of wheat, barley and corn. While rationed portions of grains may keep people alive, I doubt it will keep them very happy.

The Gulf states are not the only ones facing food consequences, roughly a third of the world’s fertilizers typically travel through the Strait [13]. The chart below shows a ~33% increase in price for granular urea (ammonia). In 2022 when the world was exposed to ‘fertilizer shock’ due to the start of the Russia/Ukraine War, prices rose to ~$900 per ton ($250-300 more than they are today depending on which contract you view). CSIS stated “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine pushed global food prices to all-time nominal highs in 2022” [14]. If the supply disruption continues to force fertilizer prices upward, a similar shock could again push global food prices higher.

investing.com

Stability

The Gulf States, are run by tyrannical dictators who brutally cling to power. The people of these countries largely oppose the alliance with israel and actually see Israel & the US as the biggest threat to the region [15]. While before they had to endure the shame of their government’s action, now they are paying a direct price.

In addition to the threat of incoming munitions, there is a real threat of water scarcity paired with rising risks of food scarcity. Given the political climate and results of previous polling, I am not convinced the people will “rally around the flag” to fight Iran, more likely they will see this as a failure of their own leaders.

Cost

Economic Costs

Crude was at ~$65 before the war, it reached $115 roughly a week into the war. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that for every $1 increase in oil price, we see a ~2.4 cent increase in gas price[16]. If the war persists and crude prices remain elevated, we could all be paying about $1.20 more per gallon of gas soon enough. This is the ‘at the pump’ effect, but it will spill over into other things like energy bills and even food (due to transportation, production etc).

Financial markets also responded negatively. US markets were down ~3% since the launch of the war. Japan, a strong ally of ours, imports up to 90% of its oil from the Middle East, much of it passing through the Strait of Hormuz [17]. Japan’s Nikkei index was down ~10% and Europe’s STOXX 600 showed a ~7.4% drop since the start of the war. Across the world, our war of choice is having a negative impact.

Note: Trump statements regarding ‘end of the war’ and potential for IEA utilizing oil reserves has caused some stocks & oil prices to ‘recover’ on hopes of peace [20]

Strategic Costs

The lack of coordination supposedly cost us 3 fighter jets which were shot down by our ally Kuwait [18]. Darryl Cooper, of , discussed the vulnerability of our bases, highlighting the declining interception rate and the damage already done to our assets in the region. This damage includes the radar network we rely on for interceptions, thus exacerbating the problem. Iran has prepared itself to absorb attacks by digging in and distributing resources and segmenting command & control. The plan from our side was to intercept attacks and overwhelm Iran to make them stop before we lost the ability to intercept. Iran is still able to strike and our ability to intercept is declining.

Real Costs

In Common Sense Neutrality Butler asks mothers to ‘hang onto the love you bear your boys’ when you hear a ‘well-delivered war speech’. I ask that we all look to our sons, perhaps now even our daughters. If you are rattling an old sabre, look at your grandkids. Are America’s wars worth sacrificing them? Is our cause so just I can ask my kids to kill for it? If you wouldn’t ask it of your own kids, why do we allow it to be asked of others? Our troops deserve better, their parents deserve better, our kids deserve better. Demand Peace. — Excerpt from ‘War is STILL a racket’

The most costly aspect of this war is the one Trump et al care the least about. At least seven American troops have been sacrificed in this unnecessary endeavor [19]. The reality is the number may be higher given the vulnerability of our forward bases. There are talks of putting troops on the ground, be it special forces or otherwise they will be highly vulnerable. We saw in Afghanistan how even elite troops like SEAL teams can be taken out by MANPAD wielding adversaries in mountainous terrain. Talk of forcing naval vessels into the strait to secure trade is even more dangerous, with limited maneuverability and limited time-to-target for enemy munitions the ships would be exposed and vulnerable.

Planning to Fail

It should be abundantly clear that we didn’t have a ‘long term’ plan here other than ‘kill Iranian leadership’. I wrote ‘American Victory’ to explicitly warn against this kind of ‘no-plan war’ that we continue to find ourselves in. As the collapse of Iran has not come (Iran elected the late Khamenei’s son as the new Ayatollah), we are now in a scenario where there is no clear definition of victory. Trump has stated only ‘unconditional surrender’ will stop the attacks. Iran has existed for thousands of years, it is not going to stop existing because Trump and his leash holder in Israel want it to. If the goal was to kill the Ayatollah, then declare victory and stop the attacks. Seeking unconditional surrender places us on the path of another ‘forever war’ that ends with us bankrupt and our empire in ruin.

Thanks for reading Diligent News! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Leave a comment

Resources

A New War: Venezuela

Eomar — Tue, 30 Dec 2025 20:49:22 GMT

Trump has drifted further and further from his election winning anti-war message. The war in Ukraine continues and Trump has increased dangerous US-support of Ukrainian strikes within Russia [1]. He touts ‘peace’ in the Middle East, but israel continues bombing Gaza & has killed more than 400 Palestinians since the ‘ceasefire’[2] (all while continuously bombing Lebanon).

Trumps bombing of Iran was perhaps the first major signal that he abandoned his promise of ‘no new wars’ and was insincere in his dedication to peace. We have since continued bombing Somalia and despite the Pope’s call for peace on Christmas, Trump decided to bomb ISIS affiliates in Nigeria [3]. While many try to obfuscate ‘acts of war’ and ‘war’ by the scale of the effort, Trumps posturing towards Venezuela is tilting much more towards our ‘traditional’ regime change disasters.

Attacks on Venezuela

Trump has been ‘ramping up’ his rhetoric towards Venezuela for some time. In September, we crossed from ‘harsh words’ to direct action and have since carried out at least 30 strikes on civilian vessels that were allegedly used for smuggling drugs [4]. Trump recently stated that the United States ‘knocked out’ a facility (a port) in Venezuela, marking the first known land strike [5].

Legality & Ramifications

By labeling cartels & traffickers ‘terrorists’, Trump sought to tap into the wide resources and lack of meaningful oversight we have historically ( & shamefully) allowed in regards to our efforts against ‘terror groups’. It is by this method that Trump is bombing and killing people who would be historically recognized as civilians subject to criminal law, not ‘unlawful combatants’ subject to military action and death. The Royal United Services Institute points out that the ‘long understood’ difference between a ‘criminal enterprise’ (narcotics groups, cartels etc) and a ‘terrorist organization’ are their goals & methods, adding: “A criminal enterprise operates primarily for profit and is countered by civilian law enforcement, while a Foreign Terrorist Organisation pursues ideological/political objectives through violence and can be addressed through military action abroad [6]. Trump’s actions seem to be further blurring the lines between combatants & civilians in a world already with far too many civilian deaths.

The war on drugs has, in my opinion, been the main justification for the ‘war on our rights’ & the militarization of domestic police forces. Now, with cartels being labeled ‘terrorist groups’, a wide net of people & organizations could, in theory, be labeled as ‘supporters’ of terrorism for something as simple as providing food services to migrants [7]. We should want fewer no-knock raids in the US and this seems to pushing us towards more.

It is also important to note, that the list of cartel ‘terror groups’ were not confined to any specific country & there is a real risk of the ‘mission’ against these groups to spread into other nations. Even cartel fears of such actions could have destabilizing effects in otherwise ‘friendly’ nations.

Congress

Each President since 9/11 has abused the post-9/11 Authorizations for Use of Military Force. Congress, by failing to reign in powers of the President, allows the Executive to act as judge, jury & executioner. Unsurprisingly, Congress (again) refused to exercise its Constitutional duties and by failing to pass a War Powers resolution they have effectively ceded more power to the President [8]. Trump has stated that he likely will not seek congressional approval for his war and that “we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country” [9]. By allowing these strikes to continue (and expand) without a declaration of (or even debate on) war, Congress is clearing the way for the President to drag us into a regime change war with Venezuela.

Population & Economy

The population of Venezuela is 31 million people. The majority of people are Christian, however, there are differing estimates for adherents to denominations. CIA Factbook claims 48% Catholic & 31%protestant. The Association of Religion Data Archives claims >90% are Catholic [10]. The population is densest in the north, near the coastline.

The Unemployment rate is reportedly only ~5.5% though a 2015 estimate states that at least 33% live in poverty [11], more recent estimates claim >80% are in poverty [12]. Crude petroleum accounts for about half of Venezuela’s exports, the US was their largest trading partner in 2023, then China & Spain [13].

Al Jazeera

Geography & Terrain

Venezuela is ~35% larger than Texas, 2.5x larger than Germany, >1.5x the size of France and 2x the size of Iraq [14]. The terrain of Venezuela is widely varying offering many challenging obstacles to any who wish to occupy the nation. Coastlines, mountains, jungles, swamps & multiple borders offer a variety of challenges

Venezuela has 2,800 km of coastline [CIA factbook], and the Orinoco River, which is a navigable river, nearly bisects the country. There are mountains in the northwest & southeast. 57% of Venezuela is ‘natural forest’ with the southern portion being both mountainous & part of the Amazon Rain Forest [19].

To the Northwest & southeast are large mountain ranges. The north western peaks are over 16,000 feet (higher than the Rockies), The southeastern mountains reach heights of over 9,000 feet and share borders with Colombia, Brazil and Guyana[15]. The area is described as “largely an upland surface of rounded hills and narrow valleys formed from ancient crystalline rocks”[15].

In short a nightmare for any invading or occupying force. The United States hasn’t had a large-scale engagement in a jungle environment since Vietnam and The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) warns that training is currently inadequate [43]. Although technology has advanced dramatically since Vietnam, much of the current military doctrine was shaped by decades of combat in the Middle East, its applicability & effectiveness in a jungle environment is largely untested.

Size

mylifeelsewhere[16]

Mountains

Sadalmelik [17]

Forests & Swamps

globalforestwatch [19]

Wiki Orinoco Delta [20]

Ports

searates.com ports [21]

Military of Venezuela

Airforce

Venezuela reportedly has as many as ‘140’ aircraft including trainers, helicopters and fighters [22]. Most notably are the SU-30MK2 (of which they have 24 [23] ). These 4.5 generation fighters were acquired in the mid 2000s, though recent struggles may leave many of them grounded, The National Interest estimates that fewer than 50% are operational. These modern aircraft are certainly formidable, but the limited quantity would quickly leave them overwhelmed by the combined aircraft of the USAF, US Navy & Marines.

Air Defense

Maduro claims to have more than 5000 Igla-S MANPAD systems [24], these weapons have a 5-7km range and can ‘destroy targets’ at altitude up to 3.5km [25a]. Venezuela also has 12 S-300 batteries, 9 BUK systems & 44 pechora units [26]. The S-300 is fairly capable, the others should not be written off either, the Pechora was responsible for downing an F-117 stealth bomber in 1999 [27], the difference today is the stand-off capabilities of modern air-to-ground munitions. I think in most scenarios US fixed wing aircraft will be operating outside of range but if we do begin using the most common bomb, a JDAM equipped MK80 series , our craft would be within range (~15 miles [28] ) of several of these systems.

Missiles

C-802 Short range Anti-ship cruise missile has a range of 65 Nautical miles [25b], meaning our carriers would be operating outside of strike range (assuming the missiles themselves are on the mainland). For comparison the southern most dot in the below picture is more than 100 miles from the coast. Another missile in the Venezuelan arsenal is the Iranian CM-90 acquired in 2024, the weapon has a range of ~55miles [29], again allowing our ships to operate outside of their range.

Both of these missile systems can be either ground or ship launched. Venezuela has at least 7 fast attack boats [30] capable of launching their anti-ship missiles. That said it is highly unlikely the boats could slip within range for a launch.

BBC [31]

Drones

Given the extent of the known cooperation between Venezuela & Iran, it is reasonable to assume they have access to a similar repertoire of drone technology. Venezuela has reportedly been manufacturing their own drones since 2012 and may be manufacturing Shahed drones for Russia [32]. The potential flow of drones from Venezuela is notable as it implies surplus & perhaps reveals some additional motivations of the US.

Looking back at “A Wider War: Iran’ we see that the range of some variants of Shahed drone is ~1500 miles. The graphic above shows all of our ships south of Puerto Rico, so within 500 miles of Venezuela. This means the Shahed drones are capable of reaching our carriers even if launched from the southern mountainous jungles of Venezuela. Importantly, while the fighters mentioned above are technologically impressive, they are expensive & finite. The cost of a Shahed drone is in the tens of thousands of dollars, and they offer a much more flexible launch profile than a jet, making them a more likely ‘sustained’ problem for the US if the conflict were to escalate further. It is as of now unclear how many drones Venezuela has in its arsenal and worth noting they would need sufficient quantity to ‘swarm’ our vessels to have a notable impact.

Map Developers [33]

The Politics of Regime Change

As is customary with US regime change policy the ‘end-state’ planning in Venezuela seems to rely on lots of hand waving. Trump stated that Maduro ‘offered everything’ [34] yet Trump still seems bent on war, a reality that will like sour the populations views of any US led regime change. The US ‘leader of choice’, Maria Machado, is a US/Zionist puppet decorated with an undeserved (and perhaps illegal) Nobel Peace Prize [35].

While she and the United States claim Maduro is illegitimate, voting trends leave at least some room for doubt. In 2004 Chavez survived a recall referendum (with ~6 million votes), in 2007 he lost a push for Constitutional amendments in his favor (he had 4.36 million votes in that effort). In 2015 ‘national assembly’ elections, Maduro’s party lost again with 5.62 million votes [36]. The 2024 election, which is disputed, had an ‘official’ tally of 6.4 million votes for Maduro and 5.2 for his opposition (Gonzalez). Comando Con Venezuela is a group “established to support the candidacy of Maria Corina Machado” [37] and offers a tally showing the opposition (Gonzalez) winning 68% of the votes (7.4 million to Maduros 3.3 million) [38].

All that said, there certainly was ‘questionable’ irregularities to say the least [39], without spending a huge amount of time digging through ‘the records’ I am left doubtful of any narrative.

Regardless of which narrative you subscribe to, the reality is that 30-52% of the population supports Maduro. That is a significantly large enough number to make the stability of ‘post regime change’ Venezuela doubtful. Machado was barred from running for office for 15 years, which initially sounds horribly corrupt, but she openly supported US sanctions on Venezuela [40]. Support of sanctions, which most often hurt the citizenry, will likely be viewed as treasonous by at least some of the people. The opposition itself is described as “splintered” [41] and some of the challenges faced in rallying supporters may be the result of these same sanctions . Reuters cited ‘voter apathy as people struggle to afford food and other basics’ [42] as a challenge for the opposition. Make no mistake, without sanctions socialism would make life tough for the people, but by applying sanctions , we give the Maduro government an easy scapegoat.

Conclusion

The diverse terrain, thick vegetation and difficult mountain regions provide refuge for any government forces or ‘defeated’ resistance groups. While I believe we would overcome and disable the ‘exquisite’ platforms like the SU-30 Fighters, the drones will likely continue to be a problem. Given Venezuela’s cooperation with Russia & Iran, it is reasonable to assume they are learning lessons on how to survive a western led bombardment geared at regime change. We cannot forget that the Houthis have found refuge in Yemen’s mountain ranges & withstood a prolonged US backed Saudi campaign AND a direct confrontation with the US Navy in which the US Navy was effectively defeated (withdrew without accomplishing stated goals).

I believe the biggest threat to America isn’t ‘the nation of Venezuela’ but the failed state of Venezuela. Were Maduros government to collapse under the weight of our aggression, I am not convinced that we would smoothly transition to an American puppet government. We would almost certainly see increased waves of migration, both to their neighboring countries and to the United States. The ensuing instability of Venezuela could have a further destabilizing influence on the region. Perhaps the biggest ‘direct threat’ would be the proliferation of military technology (mainly drones & MANPADS) to the various ‘narco-terror’ groups operating throughout South America.

As I mentioned in ‘American Victory’ we need a ‘SMART’ plan if we are to engage in ‘adventures abroad’. If Maduro has ‘offering everything’ why are we not accepting that deal and decreasing the chance of creating another failed state? If it is about ‘drugs’ why are the efforts not focused on countries with larger roles in drug trafficking? Perhaps we are looking to punish Russia’s allies, perhaps we want to ‘flex’ in ‘our backyard’.

Regardless of the motivation, we must ask ourselves: what do we actually gain? Is it worth the lives & resources it will cost and, if history is a guide, are we willing to accept the chaos that comes with another regime change war ?

Please share this post to help extend my reach!

Leave a comment

Buy something at DIligent-gear.com

Resources

Israe-lies War

Eomar — Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:48:10 GMT

On June 13th Israel conducted ANOTHER unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, once again attacking Iran. They claimed Iran was ‘on the verge’ of creating nuclear weapons, a claim our own intelligence refuted in March and one that Israel has been making for decades. The reality is, they were facing the loss of the American Public and Donald Trump may be their last chance to get Americans to fight Iran for them. We cannot give them their war.

Tel-Aviv during retaliation strikes

Initial Israeli Attack

Before I start getting into ‘details’ I want to stress that both sides are also conducting psychological ops which include exaggerating their own effectiveness while disputing the ‘other sides’ effectiveness. I do my best to filter through the noise, but some might slip through.

The initial attack reportedly used a ‘local’ pre-positioned drone base within Iran to disrupt air defense and allow for broader strikes[1] . The targets included at least 9 Iranian Nuclear Scientists (civilians to any who still value international law) [2]. Several Generals were targeted at least some were bombed in their homes, the casualties included women and children [3]. Mohammad Bagheri was the highest ranking military officer in Iran and was one of those killed, BBC lists out the others here [4].

Trump’s Role

There are two versions of events being floated around. The first, Trump was not informed of the attacks and they were done to thwart nuclear deal talks between the US & Iran (the last deal israel pushed Trump into scraping as well) .

The second version, Trump used the peace talks to lull Iran into a false sense of security & a pre-planned attack was initiated. This is Trump’s own story & we did begin moving non-essential personal BEFORE the attacks [5], indicating that Trump knew/planned for them. If this is true it is a truly heinous use of diplomatic ‘peace talks’. The modern equivalent of attacking those who come to parlay under the white flag. Also worth noting, we similarly lied to Hamas to get Edan Alexander.

In the end I don’t think it matters at this point, Trump’s ego couldn’t take the public slight if he wasn’t told and he is seemingly going along with whatever Netanyahu demands. The depravity & illegality of getting us involved in an unnecessary AGGRESSIVE war cannot be understated.

Iran’s Response

In previous tit-for-tat’s Iran’s responses were measured, each one slightly more impactful than the one before but always a measured, underwhelming response. I had thought that they established some deterrence, but I was wrong (I’ll link earlier articles at the end of this article) .

Initial reports touted a ‘successful decapitation’ of Iranian leaders and capabilities. The initial ‘contingency’ activated response was largely underwhelming, ~ 100 drones launched and reportedly, largely shot down [6].

Within 24 hours it seems the successors were in place and in control and Tel-Aviv began getting bombarded (some more videos). Note, its hard to determine the time frame but these are from between the 13th & today.

Ongoing exchanges

Since that Friday there have been frequent back and forth attacks between the two countries. Both are doing a decent job of obscuring results so it is hard to know for certain who has had a greater material effect.

Most of the initial target list in Iran seems to be surface level, airports, oil refineries, and a tv station [7]. I question the strategic value of the airport with Iran’s older aircraft, though they would likely be effective against certain platforms like larger, slower drones. It is also worth noting that intentionally targeting a TV station is another war crime to add to israel’s long list. The nuclear sites are reportedly only minimally damaged meaning the primary goal of the israelis was not achieved [8].

Israel is claiming to have destroyed ‘a third’ of Iran’s long range launchers [9], though I have my doubts about those reports. The fact that Mossad also resorted to their terrorist roots with car bombs [10], says to me that perhaps the air campaign isn’t going as well as desired (a car bomb seems much more risky).

I believe the goal from the US/Israel side would be to topple Iran like we did Syria because there is NO possibility of a successful ground invasion from us (see A Wider War: Iran). A brief look into ‘factions’ there shows that the ‘monarchists’ are not popular as people still see them as the puppets they are[11] . There could be more ‘pro-democracy’ factions though if popular support is the goal, I don’t see them making big moves as the zionists bomb them (even the pro-zionist media agrees).

In Israel, volleys of missiles have pierced the tin sieve (formally known as the iron dome) and struck their targets including the ‘Kirya’ building (IDF HQ) in Tel-Aviv [12]. Don’t forget about the constant israeli ‘human shield’ claims when looking at this graphic below.

original from harretz edit found on X

We have seen successful attacks & fires in Haifa, included in the target list was the Bazan group’s oil refineries which were hit and shut down[13]. We have seen malfunctioning air defense systems on multiple occasions[14]. All that said, while it is the most intense bombing israel has experienced (perhaps ever), it is still capable of retaliating against Iran and claims to have air dominance over Iran. While the world wonders how much of this israelis can take before fleeing, the israeli government has ordered a stop to all outbound flights, leading some occupiers to take to the seas in an effort to escape[15].

Trumps Threats

Truth social

The insanity of this statement cannot be understated. We know that Israel has nuclear weapons and are likely the only nation insane enough to deploy them in an aggressive war THEY started. I cannot even put to words how disgusted I am.

The end of MAGA

The first cracks in Trump’s base were when he floated out a bloated big-government bill so disgusting that Musk began tweeting about Trumps inclusion in the Epstein files. While that made a ripple, now there are waves. EVERY halfway decent conservative has abandoned Trump amidst his push for war. Trump has now turned on Tucker Carlson, perhaps the strongest indication of how delusional he has become. Adding further emphasis on his detachment from reality, Trump suggested Tucker “get on a television network so that people listen” [16]. I hope we are all realizing how futile it is to elect ~80 year old people in the hopes of ‘fixing things’.

Truth Social

Dave Smith, Thomas Massie, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Matt Gaetz, MTG, Hodgetwins , someone with the handle ‘chief trumpster’ and countless others are voicing their opposition to Trump’s new war. Trump has failed his base on many levels from Epstein to deportations but I think people were most attached to the promise of ‘no new wars’.

Trump the sell-out

Recycled Lies

Despite Tulsi Gabbard stating in March that Iran was not making Nukes, Trump stated ‘he does not care what she said’ [17]. The traitors in charge are now claiming that ‘Iran was days away’ from building a nuclear weapon. If that were true Iran would have nuclear weapons today, surface level damage to a couple sites would not stop the construction of a nuclear weapon and it certainly wasn’t being built at an under used airport or a TV station. This means one of two things, either Iran has nukes now and we need to adjust accordingly or Iran was NEVER building nukes and this was just a pure war of aggression by israel. Whichever one of those two scenarios is true, there is no reason for the United States to get involved.

The head of CENTCOM, General Kurilla, who is pushing for this war is a staunch zionist and war hawk[18]. Kurilla has recently gone in front of congress to parrot zionist talking points in an effort to mask the ongoing genocide in Gaza[19]. The claims in his ‘statement for the record’ from June 10th show the same tired talking point of Iran having 60% enriched Uranium which can be made into weapons in a week [20]. For context, see the article from 2021 stating the same, long known fact. The deterrent from Iran has always been ‘we could but we won’t’.

International Response

The “Western” powers all behave as expected backing israel in committing whatever crime it desires [21]. They were even so brazenly corrupt and cowardly to claim Iran was a ‘source of instability’ as israel launched ANOTHER war.

Several Israel-friendly governments in the Middle East condemned the israeli aggression including the Saudis, UAE, Qatar & Jordan [22]. The Saudis stated the “Security Council bear a great responsibility to immediately halt this aggression,”[23]. Despite the ‘condemnation’ these countries seem to still maintain ‘good’ relations with Israel, including Jordan aiding in shooting down Iranian missiles.

Turkey

“israel is risking its own existence and the future of its society step-by-step with every oppression it commits, every blood it sheds, every crime against humanity it commits” — Turkish President Erdogan [24]

Despite the strong condemnation & strong words, Turkey has not done anything in response to israel’s ongoing aggression. I view turkey as the frog in slowly warming water, always ‘waiting for the right time to act’.

Pakistan

Despite some claims that Pakistan had extended its nuclear umbrella to Iran, Pakistan refutes the claim though they are strongly opposed to israel’s actions[25]. For those that are thinking ‘well they wouldn’t admit it’ … That’s not how deterrence works! It is also worth understanding what is meant when they say the border is closed, Pakistan is not allowing Pakistanis to travel into Iran (for obvious security reasons).

Russia

Russia also condemned the israeli attack and called for negotiations. The Russian response to the idea of Regime change was more strongly worded[26]. After watching israel & the west topple the Russia friendly Assad regime in Syria, this is likely a bit too close to home for them [27]. I mentioned earlier my assessment of ‘regime change’ in Iran, but it is certainly worth noting the risk. Despite the aversion to regime change, I don’t think Russia will extend much to aid Iran directly, if I had to guess it could increase shipments of air defense when/if the direct conflict cools off a bit.

China

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" — Napoleon Bonaparte

China strongly condemned the israeli attack on Iran[28], and it is important to note Chinese interests in the region. In the same CENTCOM document calling for war with Iran, they cite the fact that most Iranian oil goes to China “More than 85% of all illicit Iranian oil exports in 2024 went to the CCP with an average of 1.5 million barrels per day, accounting for 10% of total Chinese oil imports”. This only covers Iranian oil, this isn’t touching the other oil that flows through the straight of Hormuz (that Iran can close), 84% of that goes to Asia [29].

As we commit blunder after blunder, I think China would be happy to follow Napoleon’s advice. However, as we begin to encroach further on their strategic interests and threaten their economy, I wonder how long they will leave us un-interrupted.

Continuing Genocide

It is important to note despite the zionist cries about ‘civilian targets’ they are continuing to commit genocide in Gaza. Even the BBC is reporting on israel attacking starving Palestinians at aid stations[30]. They (BBC) likely know that people are no longer paying as much attention as a wider war looms. Do not allow the zionists to distract you, that is also part of their efforts, remember ALL of their ongoing crimes.

Conclusion

This war is not America’s war. This is a war that israel CHOSE to start, because they were certain they could get America to send our troops to die for them again. Let them fight their own war. We cannot win a war in Iran, we are only destabilizing things for future generations, we must choose peace. While evidence shows Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon, even if they had one they could not attack the United States. Mutually assured destruction would prevent them from using it on anyone the same as it prevents every nuclear nation from using them. Truly the only nation whose nuclear weapons I fear may be used are israel’s.

If we directly attack Iran it will solidify the message of 20+ years of aggressive foreign policy, that the only guarantee of peace is a nuclear weapon and that is a tragic & dangerous message to send.

Thomas Massie & Ro Khanna introduced a war powers resolution in the House & Kaine did in the senate, support their efforts to avoid war!

Contact The White House and demand NO WAR!

Contact your representative and demand NO WAR!

Contact your Senators and demand NO WAR!

Leave a comment

Resources

The Trump Doctrine

Eomar — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 01:23:43 GMT

The US empire is facing multiple challenges with the evidence piling up to near catastrophic levels in the past few years. There is a saying amongst my fellow Marines, “we don’t retreat we attack in a different direction” that I think is applicable to what we are seeing from the Trump administration . A myriad of announcements, provocations & Executive Orders have shown Trumps focus on the Western Hemisphere as he also (seemingly) works to reduce our role on the global stage.

The End of Global Hegemony

First, I want to note that our empire, as it exists today, harms the American people. I provide an overview of the many challenges the US is facing in America’s Waning Power. Recently, several events have stood out as particularly damaging to American power & influence.

Disclosure: The book links in this article are Amazon affiliate links, meaning that at no additional cost to you, I may receive a commission if you click through and make a purchase.

Diplomatic & Strategic Failures

Our chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, while the right move, was embarrassingly executed, especially since we had been there for so long. It gave the impression of us quite literally running from the country (after we spent trillions of dollars on the war & sacrificed thousands of American lives). On the tail of our defeat in Afghanistan , decades of provocations & diplomatic failures (intentional or not) culminated in the Russian invasion of Ukraine (I recommend Scott Horton’s “Provoked” to understand this more fully — I’m still reading it). As that was ongoing, Hamas carried out “Al Aqsa Flood” on 10/7 and we had another ~~leech sucking our resources~~ nation demanding support for their war. Our blank check support for Israel’s genocide is an ongoing failure that continues to destroy our reputation as I detailed in several of my previous articles.

Economic Warfare

The misuse of our economic weapons by the Biden administration were massive. We exposed the weakness of our primary ‘first strike’ weapon, sanctions. In America’s Waning Power, I describe how even our own allies circumvented the sanctions on Russia. Further exacerbating our weakness, we removed Russia from SWIFT and seized their reserves. This sent a strong signal that the dollar is only good as a reserve ‘if you behave’. In previous years there was no viable alternative, today we have Bitcoin. I describe how Bitcoin is a real, viable alternative in ‘Choose Bitcoin’. A key point to remember, Russia, China, the BRICS et al who have largely been victimized by the dollar do not need THEIR currency to be the ‘reserve currency’ they just need the dollar NOT to be. Bitcoin offers a neutral solution.

Supply Chain

With ‘only’ the Ukraine war to support our munition stockpiles were being depleted and the weakness in our manufacturing was being exposed. When we added in our blind support of Israel’s genocide, the tax on our system became extreme. America’s Waning Power provides an initial look, while A Wider War: Supply Chain & restraint revisits the issue (in October of 2024). For context, the US makes ~360,000 155 rounds a year, the rest of NATO makes ~840,000, Russia makes ~3 million a year . The shortage imposed on Ukraine results in a higher casualty rate. Israel operations are massively demanding & they were using munitions manufactured in 1953 in order to keep up the pressure. (all of the sources and more details are available here).

Capabilities & Vulnerabilities

As I argue in America’s Waning Power & American Victory, our large expensive systems are increasingly vulnerable and incapable of carrying out our mission of ‘force projection’. Our carrier groups sat off the coast of Yemen, a nation without a navy and came out of it exhausted and experiencing the “most intense combat since WW2” [1]. Yemen, one of the poorest nations in the world not only stood up to our Navy, they did so while launching domestically produced hypersonic Palestine 2 missiles into Tel-Aviv [2].

Russia, after being further provoked by American backed strikes, displayed its capabilities with the Oreshnik missile strikes[3]. Shortly after the strike, analysts acknowledged they could also carry nuclear payloads[4]. We have saw there & in israel the difficulties ‘our’ systems have in defeating hypersonic missiles. While we have yet to see such a weapon aimed at a carrier, we should not think they are the invulnerable fortresses they once were.

All of these wars occur as China sits on the sideline & watches us stumble from catastrophic blunder to catastrophic blunder. As an X user appropriately noted (I think quoting Napoleon?), “Don’t interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake” .

Withdrawal

A (slightly) modified Monroe Doctrine Political Cartoon

Palestine & the Middle East

“The Future of Palestine” covers Trump’s “Gaza Plan” in more detail, but I will summarize here. Trump’s plan for Gaza is so wrought with errors & so contradictory to everything else I will lay out here that I am still of the mind that, despite his ties to Israel, this ‘plan’ is simply him “negotiating” with regional actors. I view this as him trying to dig israel out of the hole it made for itself.

As I lay out in The Future of Palestine, israel & the IDF lost in Gaza. We see further confirmation as Hamas citing Israeli violations of the ceasefire announced delaying further prisoner releases[5]. Later, in addition to threats of more violence, Israel allowed in more aid to shore up their side of the agreement and the ceasefire continued on as planned [6].

Note: I cover israel more at the end of this article too

The king of Jordan continues to grovel to Trump, yet the survivability of the state with another influx of refugees is doubtful [7]. Egypt has held a firmer stance against any ethnic cleansing, refusing to meet with Trump in regards to this plan [8]. As I believe Trump hoped for, they are planning to submit their own vision for Gaza reconstruction [9]. While the Saudi prince has long stated that normalization can only occur with a Palestinian state[10], the Abraham accords put that commitment to the test. October 7th and the subsequent genocide thrust Palestine back into the center of policy in the region. Trump’s plan received swift rejection from the Saudis. Israel subsequently “jokingly” proposed Saudi Arabia giving up land in support of the ethnic cleansing plan. The Saudis responded with “scathing state media campaign” where they questioned the sanity & mental state of Netanyahu amongst other criticisms[11].

Iran has been getting mixed signals from Trump. Trump mentioned his desire for “Iran to be a great country, but one that cannot have a Nuclear Weapon”[12] . Iran stated its willingness to negotiate but not under ‘maximum pressure’[13]. Meanwhile, Israel is continuing to try to push us into war with Iran on their behalf by getting Trump to back strikes against Iran [14]. Hopefully sanity prevails, Iran is a much more formidable enemy than those we have recently lost wars to.

Russia, Europe & NATO

The map below matches almost identically to the one that I used in America’s Waning Power to show that Russia had achieved its goals & Ukraine was not going to ‘win it back’. I, and others, have stated that peace should have been negotiated after the first Russian push was stalled/repelled or at the very start of the doomed ‘counteroffensive’ by Ukraine. The strategic position of Ukraine is going to continue to dwindle the longer this goes on (see above). While Zelensky asserts that they will “never recognize occupied territories as Russian”, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth acknowledges that it is “unrealistic” to seek the pre-2014 borders[15]. Trump’s plan seems to acknowledge some aspects needed for peace. Below are some things of note from his talk on Ukraine & Russia [16]:

Ukraine cannot join NATO
acknowledges the toll & cost on Ukraine but asserts that the US will be repaid for its ‘loans’ that supported the war
Ukraine is ‘unlikely’ to reclaim its land, but “some of it will come back”
wants people to stop being killed

This, among other things, is causing growing divide between America & our European allies. Poland is understandably VERY supportive of Ukraine, France asserted that Ukraine should remain on the ‘path’ of joining NATO & the UK defense minister asserted that they will ‘step up for Ukraine’ [17]. As Trump stated in a briefing, there is an ocean between us & Europe. What is vital for Europe, is not as vital for us & the contributions to NATO do not reflect that reality (I make a case for abandoning NATO entirely here).

While many are deriding Trump’s mineral deal with Zelensky [18], it does at the very least give the US a ‘vested interest’ in maintaining peace as war would cause disruptions in any industrial production there (whether this is ‘good’ is debatable). It seems, at least on this front, Trump is leaning more on ‘soft power’ hopes than military power.

On 2/28 as I was doing a final edit of this article, Zelensky, Trump & Vance met in the oval office and the meeting went as poor as it could for Zelensky. He came off as arrogant, unappreciative & combative towards the President & Vice President. Trump followed up the meeting with a post on social media (below), it appears that the support that Trump had until now promised to continue is off the table. Following this very public spat various European leaders have already voiced support for Zelensky, again emphasizing the ocean sized gap in American & European interests.

Asia

For those unfamiliar, Taiwan is a large point of contention in the US-China relationship. Our reliance on Taiwan is a real risk to our defense capabilities [19], 44.2% of our ‘logic chips’ and 24.4% of our ‘memory’ chips come from Taiwan [20]. While Trump isn’t the first to notice this vulnerability, he may be the most aggressive about it threatening tariffs as high as 100% on Taiwanese chips [21]. Taiwan in response set up a hotline to help companies navigate tariffs & companies like TSMC have begun production in the US [21]. It is important to note that tariffs are a tax whose cost (dependent on demand) are split between the consumer & the producer. While generally opposed to ANY tax, domestic production of chips is a vital strategic interest and if it moves us out of an adversarial position with China could reduce defense costs significantly.

Military Reduction

Trump mentioned that “when things straighten out”, he wants to have a meeting on “slowing down, stopping & reducing nuclear weapons in particular. And also, on not having to spend the kind of money we are all spending on weapons, military weapons generally”[22]. Trump mentioned working to cut the military budget in half in agreement with Russia & China. He also pointed out the world destroying capabilities we already have via our nuclear weapons[23]. While some may be dismissive, this was apparently one of the things discussed directly with Putin. Putin later stated “I think it’s a good idea. The US would cut by 50 percent and we would cut by 50 percent, and then China would join if it wanted”. China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian stated China’s “limited defense spending is completely out of the need of safeguarding national sovereignty, security and development interests, and the need of maintaining world peace”[24]. It should be noted that the US budget dwarfs both China & Russia combined. It is important to note the difference in military activities of each nation, our military projects force around the world, a reduction in budget (especially a 50% reduction) would necessitate a massive reduction in our interventions.

wiki

USAID

I have plenty to quarrel with on Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric, but domestically I am enjoying the dismantling of this & other shadowy agencies. I highly recommend listening to Joe Rogan’s recent interview with Mike Benz to get an idea of what USAID really is. The Libertarian Institute also has an interview between Daniel McAdams & Tommy Salmons [25] where they detail the various aspects of how USAID facilitates regime change. In short, USAID is/was a method of media control & a “revolution” generating apparatus aligned closely with what we typically think of the CIA doing. This tool of the ‘deep state’, routinely pushes or pulls us into the countless wars and ‘not wars’ that cost our lives, liberty & property.

While I am happy to see the ‘legacy system’ dismantled, I believe it would be naïve to think they are leaving themselves without some similar weapons. The ongoing genocide in Gaza has shown just how willing big tech is to help in any conflict (as long as they can profit). My concern is that this is just a shift from the belief we need ‘target country’ newspapers pushing propaganda to believing it is more cost effective to use social media, including its bots & algorithm manipulations, to create the same result. After all, I don’t think it is the older generation reading the Sunday paper who are leading revolts.

Attack in a Different Direction

South America

Trump’s administration has recently labeled various drug cartels ‘terrorist organizations’[26]. This designation opens the door for more direct action & legal prosecution of a variety of entities. Reuters reported that many companies are vulnerable to prosecution via the need to pay ‘protection’ payments to the (now) terrorist entities [27]. In addition to legal repercussions, this opens the door for increased direct involvement by the DOD, from intelligence gathering to, potentially, direct action like we see against the other (mostly Middle East based) ‘terrorist’ organizations [28].

Panama is also in Trump’s sight, he stated “China is running the Panama Canal that was not given to China, that was given to Panama foolishly, but they violated the agreement, and we’re going to take it back, or something very powerful is going to happen,” [29]. The President of Panama initially balked at the statements [30] but has since pulled out of China’s “belt & road” initiative and committed to repatriate illegal immigrants deported from the US (at the US’ expense) [29]. For context, the canal is of strategic importance to the United States, 40% of our container traffic passes through it[31] and our naval vessels use it on occasion with about 40 trips annually[32] (though not generally ‘on mission’)[33]. It is worth noting the ‘mishandling’ of the relationship that is depicted in the CSIS article[31] and to note that this rhetoric may be just ‘resetting expectations’ between the two countries.

Trump has been taking action to force Venezuela to repatriate illegal migrants[34] and recently revoked Chevron’s license to export their oil, citing a lack of ‘democratic conditions’ & ‘not moving fast enough’ to repatriate the illegal migrants[35]. In El Salvador, a deal was reached to send illegal immigrants from the US to their prisons [36].

Greenland & Canada

“The island is loaded with critical minerals, including rare earth minerals, lithium, graphite, copper, nickel, zinc, and other materials used in green technologies. Some estimates suggest that Greenland has six million tons of graphite, 106 kilotons of copper, and 235 kilotons of lithium. It holds 25 of the 34 minerals in the European Union’s official list of critical raw materials, all of which exist along its rocky coastline, generally accessible for mining operations.” [37]

When we look at the negotiations in Ukraine, the mineral aspect supports the idea that the US is looking to Greenland at least in part due to its mineral wealth. While Trump negotiated peace with Russia, he negotiated minerals with Ukraine[38], this subsequently led to an offer from Russia as well [39]. In relation to Greenland’s minerals, I view it as a bit of ‘keep away’ with China. Just as our languishing support of Panama opened the door for China to step in, failure to ‘seize control’ of Greenland’s resource development might let it slip away to China.

From a military standpoint, Greenland has a key role in our missile & submarine defense[40]. We currently have bases & relatively ‘easy’ access to the country via Denmark & NATO, but there is the potential for Greenland’s independence that could impact that. While the leadership in Greenland signaled a willingness for increased cooperation with the US, Trump remained adamant that the ‘US would get it’[41]. At one point Trump refused to rule out using the military to secure Greenland, leading NATO allies to discuss troops in Greenland [42].

I think a lot of the talk from Trump & our NATO ‘allies’ is hyperbolic. I believe that Trump is signaling that Greenland is within OUR sphere of influence and the ‘independent state’ that may arise should be aligned with us & our plans, not Europe’s. A recurring theme to note is the line this draws between ‘our interests’ and Europe’s.

Trump’s Canada rhetoric seems to be just that, mere posturing in order to assert ‘dominance’ over the region. Canadians are unlikely to favor giving up their (little) sovereignty to join the US, even while facing higher tariffs. If they did ‘accept statehood’ they would be the largest state and likely lean more left that the Republican party, throwing off electoral dynamics for the foreseeable future [43]. I again see this as a focus on wielding power ‘close to home’ as opposed to far abroad.

The Israel Exception

When looking at everything else that Trump is doing & saying, our relationship with israel (as it long has) stands apart. Trump continues to flood weapons into israel [44] , promising ~a year’s worth of US bomb production without review by congress. This has seemingly emboldened the genocidal leader of israel, who has again openly stated his intent to commit war crimes. With the exception of israel, the ‘Trump doctrine’ seems to prioritize US interests.

When JD Vance was nominated, I pointed out that he wanted to end support for Ukraine to better support israel. In terms of material military support, this still makes sense, but the challenges israel faces are extending beyond the amount of bombs they can drop. When Trump won, I pointed out that he has a chance to present a real two state solution as an israel first’ message. Before you bring up his ‘Gaza plan’, read The Future of Palestine.

Perhaps Trump believes he can largely withdraw from the world stage (following all the points I lay out here), while maintaining the last vestige of our far reaching empire in israel. I believe that this effort would fail, though perhaps it would give the zionist project a few more years of the ‘status quo’. The zionist entity does not only rely on our bombs & weapons, it relies on us bribing (or threatening) other nations to comply and (using tools like USAID) to regime change those that do not. I do not think that we can abandon the empire ‘except for’ the most toxic, parasitic appendage of said empire.

Conclusion

I stated before that our status as the global hegemon is ending, we have two choices. To let our empire go and minimize damage or, to fight for it and risk it collapsing inwardly upon our nation. Trump, or any leader really, would not present this as a withdrawal or a retreat, instead it is sold to us & the world as a ‘sign of strength’. We are ‘asserting dominance’ across the Western Hemisphere, the region that was ‘established’ as ‘exclusively our sphere’ since the Monroe Doctrine.

Trump’s rhetoric, regardless of his intent, seems to lead us down a path of a reduced ‘active’ role on the global stage. His repeated statements isolate Europe’s interests from American interests & shake the very foundations of NATO. His recent fallout with Zelensky put a very strong emphasis on this fact. While the ‘Israel exception’ appears largely intact, many of his actions are straining the ‘supporting relationships’ in the region. I also believe it will be increasingly difficult to hide the obvious contradictions between our policies on Ukraine & israel. Finally, if Trump’s military spending reduction were to be implemented to ANY degree, many of our relationships, both friendly & adversarial , would be dramatically changed.

Based on the information we have today, the recurring theme is a focus on ‘our interests’ and not that of our ‘allies’. It is hard to say definitively what the ‘real’ goals are and what will come of them, but I see many signals of us embracing the reality of a multi-polar world. While there would be challenges, I think it will result in a healthier America, one which can “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all”.

Thanks for reading Diligent News! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Leave a comment

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed—in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them—conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another—that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character—that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. George Washington’s Farewell Address

Diligent Gear

I recently launched Diligent Gear, a shop for clothing etc inspired by my writing. Below are a few of the shirts available, there are more antiwar & pro freedom shirts available on the website! If you want to support my work but want something more tangible in return this is for you! Free subscribers get 5% off & paid subs get 15% off!

Shop Diligent Gear

Resources

Cease...fire

Eomar — Wed, 04 Dec 2024 15:02:58 GMT

Hezbollah & the zionists have agreed to a ceasefire and there are ongoing, supposedly hopeful, talks regarding a ceasefire in Gaza. Despite the agreement, israel has continued aggressive actions in Lebanon that threaten to re-escalate the conflict. This is occurring amidst the backdrop of an incoming Trump administration which has promised ‘no new wars’ and ‘to end wars’ while simultaneously threatening to escalate ongoing wars. This article will provide some context to the current situation.

Hezbollah-zionist Ceasefire

The terms of the ceasefire give Israel 60 days to withdraw from Southern Lebanon and they give Hezbollah forces the same time frame to move north of the Litani river [1]. I think it is important to note that this 60 day timeframe puts the deadline at 1/26/2025, 6 days after Trump’s inauguration. The Litani river was also the geographic line designated after the 2006 war by UNSC Resolution 1701[2]. From the zionist perspective, Hezbollah being pushed north of the Litani river would significantly limit the usability of their short-range munitions. The “goal” here is to have both confronting forces (IDF & Hezbollah) withdraw from the area and the Lebanese military take over security, essentially acting as a layer of insulation between the two. The feasibility of this plan is questionable given the Lebanese Army’s 73,000 man troop strength [3], the extensive capabilities of Hezbollah & the bomb everything that moves tactics of the zionists.

CNN [4]

Litani river to ‘israel’ Border, Google Maps

Adding doubt to this ceasefire is the ongoing aggressive actions of the zionists, again acting as an obstacle to peace. Despite the “ceasefire” israel has repeatedly and continuously struck inside Lebanon. Even “American” special envoy Hochstein has chastised israel for its repeated violations of the terms of the ceasefire agreement [5]. By December 1st, France had already cited 52 israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement [6]. Netanyahu has not shied away from this aggressive behavior, stating “We are enforcing this ceasefire with an iron fist,” [7]. The zionist defense minister took it even further threatening the (currently) ‘neutral’ state of Lebanon by saying “If we return to war we will act strongly, we will go deeper, and the most important thing they need to know: that there will be no longer be an exemption for the state of Lebanon”.

On December 2nd, Hezbollah “retaliated” by firing two rockets into land that israel is still occupying in Lebanon (no one was harmed) [8]. I have significant doubts that this is going to hold if the zionists continue to breach the agreement, especially if they continue their genocide in Gaza. The level of aggression displayed while claiming to ‘be in a ceasefire’ is absurd, even by our own corrupt government’s standards.

The reality on the ground I believe is unchanged. While zionists still have massive air superiority, they can achieve very little with their conscript laden ground forces. I think that the reality of our supply chain concerns & China’s recent posturing made the need for peace here more ‘real’ to Western nations.

Rumors of a Gaza-Ceasefire

Reportedly, Hamas & Fateh (the mostly useless group ruling the West Bank) are near an agreement to hand over control of Gaza to a 12-15 member committee comprised of “independent” people “mostly from Gaza” [9]. Details are pretty hard to come by at this stage and nothing has been solidified. The first questions that comes to mind are in regards to border control (with Egypt primarily & the absurd Sea restrictions).

Trump recently threatened ‘the middle east’ (more civilians) with “Hell to pay” if the hostages aren’t released by his inauguration (1/20/2025). Hamas responded by pointing out the fact that Netanyahu is the one preventing a peace agreement [10]. Even israelis acknowledge this as true [11] and it is made even more obvious by the continued escalations, assassinations & violence perpetrated by israel. While peace is in the best interest of Israel, it is not in the best interest of Netanyahu, who would face prosecution in israel on unrelated charges and whose ability to leave israel is severely hampered by ICC arrest warrants.

TruthSocial

Conclusion

I believe Hezbollah’s acceptance of a “ceasefire” was a ‘show of good will’ to facilitate peace in Gaza (given that the news of the Hamas talks came shortly after). I think the primary reason the ‘ceasefire’ with Hezbollah is holding is the potential success of the Gaza ceasefire talks. While some are alarmed by Trump’s rhetoric, I question what more we can do that is worse than full-on supporting a genocide for 14+ months. Again, due to supply constraints & global realities, I do not think the US can expand the war without disastrous results. With politics in mind, I think perhaps Trump is adding rhetoric in recognition that peace is actually possible & he wants to lay claim to it (saying his ‘tough talk’ forced peace etc).

Achieving a ceasefire is only the first step and that has yet to be done. The next steps will be holding those responsible for committing genocide accountable, while rapidly moving towards a two-state solution with a real & viable Palestinian state.

Thanks for reading Diligent News! This post is public so feel free to share it (it helps a lot!).

Leave a comment

Note: Recently launched Diligent-Gear, for some apparel & accessories inspired by the articles here.

(resources/citations are below related articles)

Resources

The power struggle between Hezbollah & the Lebanese Army is explained a bit here.

A Wider War: Supply Chain & Restraint

Eomar — Tue, 01 Oct 2024 17:31:08 GMT

Israel now stands ‘poised to invade’ Lebanon. In recent months Israel has leveraged its intelligence apparatus to carry out various operations bringing the region closer to a wider war. Despite israel’s recent successes I continue to have my doubts on its ability to wage & win a wider war, to understand why, I think it is important to look at supply demands on Western nations today.

Bullets cant fly without Supply

The oft laughed at POG mantra ‘Bullets can’t fly without supply’ is true, no matter how much my fellow grunts may rightfully mock the person saying it. In ‘America’s Waning Power’ I detailed both the depleted state of American munition reserves and the complete lack of manufacturing capacity to replenish those supplies.

Supply

155 Shells

When CSIS did their research (cited in the above mentioned article), the United States had a surge capacity up to 240,000 rounds per year. An recent Army publication (Feb 2024) states that the US was producing ~164,000 rounds annually & is now at 360,000 rounds annually (well above the previous surge capacity). The stated goal for the Army is 100,000 per month, or 1.2 million per year [1]. The rest of NATO is producing around 840,000 rounds annually [2].

Bombs

Information on bomb production wasn’t included in the CSIS report as we have apparently given relatively few to Ukraine. From 2010 to Dec 2023, we have given Israel 12489 JDAM kits and we produce ~10,500 a year with a surge rate of over 50,000 [3]. This is the guidance kits, not the explosive device.

For the explosive device itself, production numbers are harder to come by. This from the DOD, shows purchasing info across many systems. A 2022 article shows General Dynamics winning a contract worth $133.2 million to produce MK-80 series bombs[4]. At lets say (high end) $4,000 per bomb we are looking at upwards of 33,000 bombs per year.

Demand

Artillery

The above numbers are legitimately impressive given the earlier estimates, however, the demand has been equally impressive. Since the start of the Ukraine war the United States has sent over 3 million rounds to Ukraine, so at a replenish rate (ie supply minus demand) of 1 million per year, it would take 3 years to replenish our stockpiles.

Israel reportedly fired over 100,000 artillery shells in the first 2 months of their genocidal campaign (90,000 at Gaza & 10,000 at Hezbollah) [5]. Back in December 2023, The United States sent over 57,000 rounds to help replenish Israel’s stockpiles [6]. While their stockpile and munition information isn’t public knowledge, Haaretz is reporting that israel is relying on some ammunition manufactured in 1953 [7]. Perhaps they are using a FIFO (first in first out) strategy to deplete aging ammunition, but given the accompanying report of the increased failure rate and that it is almost twice as old as its suggested ‘shelf life’ might point to necessity of its use.

Bombs

In December, CNN reported that ‘nearly half’ of the bombs being dropped on Gaza were ‘dumb bombs’ ie, no guidance systems. By that time they had already used 29,000 air-to-ground munitions [8]. Israel reportedly drops an average of 300 bombs per day in Gaza, or over 100,000 bombs since the genocide began [9].

Competition

“When Ukraine was firing 10,000 shells per day, between 35 and 45 Ukrainian soldiers were killed daily and about 250 to 300 were wounded. But when the daily fire fell to half that, more than 100 Ukrainian soldiers were killed per day and at least a thousand were wounded.” — ‘A senior Ukrainian officer’ [10]

When we look at the demand for munitions in Ukraine, assume they need to match Russia roughly 1:1 on artillery, Russia is currently producing 250,000 shells per month, about 3 million per year. On the ground, CNN reports that while Russia is firing ~10,000 shells per day (3.6 million annually), Ukraine is only firing ~2,000 ( 730,000 rounds a year)[2] . As noted in the quote above, the rationing of artillery shells is having a devastating effect on Ukrainian troops.

Were Israel to be in a wider conflict that necessitate rationing of munitions, the casualty rate would presumably begin to increase as well.

Constraints

While Israel has a robust military industry, it relies heavily on others. Compounding the general supply & demand issues is legal challenges within ‘allied countries’. Germany (who is the 2nd largest supplier for israel after the US), the UK and the Netherlands have all suspended at least some of their exports to israel on concerns of human rights violations[11]. Even the United States temporarily halted shipments of JDAMs to israel, though recently the ‘sale’ has been approved [12].

US Elections

While both democrats and republicans display an unending willingness to betray America on behalf of israel. Trump & Vance have been supportive of ending the war in Ukraine which would largely alleviate the supply constraints detailed above. When I reviewed JD Vance I came to the conclusion, he wants to end the Ukraine war so he can better support israel. On the other side of that coin is their promise for ‘no new wars’ which could (hopefully) limit the direct involvement of the US.

While peace in Ukraine would free up NATO munitions, Russia will likely be eager to ‘return the favor’ by increasing their support of America’s adversaries throughout the world. Primarily, I think Iran and by proxy, all those Iran supports (Yemen, Hezbollah etc).

Capabilities

I do not think anyone would argue that israel is unskilled or incapable when it comes to intelligence operations, they have proven their prowess there. Additionally, with vast NATO support, their air operations are again difficult to challenge. On the ground is where the israelis are at their weakest. I am not going to delve too much into it because i did in other articles , but in short, conscripts fight like conscripts. As detailed in Double or Nothing israeli officials admit they cannot achieve their goals in Gaza, Hamas is still able to conduct operations and israel is still taking casualties.

I also detail in that article Hezbollah’s capabilities, and despite the death of Nasrallah, it seems improbable that Hezbollah would suddenly cease to function, more evidence of this comes in their continued strikes against israel. If they can muster command and control & have the stockpiles of weapons they are reported to have, Israel is going to be in for a bad time. Regardless, I believe a ground incursion would be catastrophic for Israel as I assume that is drilled and trained at the small unit level and less reliant on coordinated fire & control.

Restraint

For much of this conflict I have seen ‘the wisdom’ in restraint. The ‘resistance’ sought to undermine israel gradually enough to keep the United States mostly on the sidelines. We saw this in the telegraphed Iranian response, which i (wrongly) believed established deterrence. We saw it again on limited response to Beirut bombings, and we saw it in the lack of a response to the assassination of Ismail Haniya. I believe now that the ‘strategic value’ of such restraint is limited if not counter-productive. Israel is taking advantage of the restraint to inflict major damage to its adversaries and without established deterrence, it is doing so with impunity.

I wrote in ‘Israeli Escalations’ how I believe israel is seeking to start a wider war before US elections (so the next administration inherits the war), it seems they are willing to start the war with or without the resistance’s participation. With that information, Hezbollah remaining within the previously established ‘escalatory rules’ (ie hitting only northern ‘israel’) doesn’t appear logical. If looking for an idea of how much damage Hezbollah could inflict, i suggest you read ‘A Wider War : Hezbollah’.

From the Iranian perspective, Nasrallah seemingly played ‘by the rules’ with Israel (despite their repeated escalations) and they dropped a HUGE arsenal on him to kill him. What assurance is there for Iran or its leadership that israel will not behave the same way towards Iran? I think it is becoming harder to argue for restraint within Iran, if not impossible.

Conclusion

As israel relies primarily on its stand-off munitions to destroy & degrade its adversaries, supply chain issues are a significant risk to their ability to conduct operations. Given the challenges israel is facing with its ongoing genocide in Gaza, part of me wonders if this is more ‘bluff’ than true intent to invade and control parts of Lebanon. A key aspect for the continued survival of israel is its ability (primarily through intelligence & intimidation) to keep its adversaries ‘constrained’. The death of Nasrallah does not change any of the previously documented facts around the strategic, personnel and political challenges israel is facing (without a ground conflict in Lebanon).

Note: As I finished writing this, Iran began launching missiles towards Israel. Perhaps they came to a similar assessment on the value of restraint.

Leave a comment

Resources

American Victory

Eomar — Sun, 02 Jun 2024 04:05:41 GMT

“A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils…And it gives ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without Odium, sometimes even with popularity…” — George Washington, Farewell Address 1796

Fundamentally, I think Americans have lost sight of what ‘victory’ is. Many Americans believe victory is the ability to destroy or the ability to occupy. They see an American base in a far away land or an F-35 dropping bombs & think ‘that is victory’. In reality that is risk, that is waste and ultimately that is defeat.

Subscribe now

American victory is the preservation of American Lives, Liberty & Property. Many of our policy choices clearly work counter to one or more of these three critical measures. We have bases scattered throughout the world leaving American lives in danger at the cost to the American tax payer. We go to war without clear goals or an understanding of how it achieves or contributes to the above defined victory.

Audio version available here:

Disclosure: The book links in this article are Amazon affiliate links, meaning that at no additional cost to you, I may receive a commission if you click through and make a purchase.

Planning for Victory

I think a missing aspect in striving for victory is planning based on what is feasibly possible. If you have attended any form of business training you have heard of SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, ACHIEVABLE, Relevant, Time-Bound). This simple acronym could have saved much heart-ache for the American people and our military (at the expense of the military industrial complex).

Iraq 1

In the first war with Iraq, the United States went in with the goal of pushing Iraq out of Kuwait. Its specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, though it wasn’t time bound. In the end, US forces were able to push Iraq out with relative ease, The entirety of the operation was 6 months from the build up of ‘desert shield’ to the offensive ‘desert sabre’. The ground offensive ‘Desert Sabre’ lasted only 4 days before Saddam called for a retreat. Mission (actually) Accomplished.

US resolution for the first Iraq War

This image is GW Bush during the 2nd Iraq War

Afghanistan

The use of force authorization for Afghanistan is short, primarily because it is a blank check. There are no definitions of victory. There are no limitations beyond what “he [The President] determines”. The war on terror was meant to be continuous.

You don’t have to take my word for it, General James Mattis, a one time favorite among my fellow Marines, stated in his book “Call Sign Chaos” how he was “prepared to deploy Special Ops teams and Marine rifle platoons, all with forward observers who could direct air and artillery fire”. He had a plan to cutoff all possible routes of Bin Laden’s escape and to “destroy Al Qaeda’s high command”. After proposing his plan he received silence in return, he called around frantically trying to get approval. Instead another plan went forward where tribal fighters would ‘win the war’. They did not, they were ill-equipped and ill trained. Bin Laden and many others escaped and the war continued for 20 more years until our ultimate and embarrassing defeat.

Iraq War 2

Look below at the ‘joint resolution’ regarding the use of force in Iraq. The entire left side is based on lies. There were no ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (WMD), no one EVER thought Iraq could attack the US. The right side is effectively acknowledging the left side is garbage. It is appealing to the nation’s desire for vengeance after 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, in fact, one of the points of anger of Bin Laden is that the Saudis wanted the US to defend them and not him [1]! The use of force itself is effectively undefined due to its vagueness “defend the national security of the United States” yet no national security interests were defined to be under threat. The 2nd Iraq war was not meant to be won, like the ‘war on terror’, it was meant to be continuous.

The Military Industrial Complex

If you find yourself asking ‘why would our leaders do this’. I go into detail in War is STILL a Racket how the US is led into wars for profits. This is not a new problem, General Butler’s classic “War is A Racket” discusses it in reference to World War One. Many, if not most of “our” politicians are not interested in American Victory, they are interested in profits. Unending, poorly planned wars and strategies are a good ticket to profit for the racket.

Destruction and death

Destruction & death do not translate to victory. They can win battles, but not wars. The BBC very clearly and succinctly spells this out when discussing the US defeat in Vietnam. “The Americans tried to win the war from the air. Their tactics were brutal. As a result of this brutality and lack of sensitivity, they turned the Vietnamese people against them”[2]. It is important also to note how a military defeat in battle (like the Tet Offensive) can still lead to a strategic victory[3]. Marines should be familiar with the battle for Hue city, ‘house to house, street by street’, the fighting was captured by journalists and helped put an end to the war.

Counter Insurgency

US General McChyrstal again ‘discovered’ this reality with “COIN Mathematics”.

“Let us say that there are 10 in a certain area. Following a military operation, two are killed. How many insurgents are left? Traditional mathematics would say that eight would be left…There are more likely to be as many as 20, because each one you killed has a brother, father, son and friends”[4]

We saw a shift in strategy in Iraq War 2 when we switched to Counter Insurgency (COIN) and an effort to win “hearts and minds”. This doctrine explicitly states that “Ultimate success in counterinsurgency operations is normally gained by protecting the population, not the counterinsurgency force”[5]. I mentioned the strategy in Zionism, an Obstacle to Peace when comparing US force operation in Ramadi to zionist operations in Gaza (excerpt of that article pictured below)

I write this to show that the US military, at least on paper KNOWS that ‘bombs and bullets’ are not effective at winning these type of conflicts. As I have stated before, we are very adept at winning battles, but we have lost every war since WW2 (Iraq 1 turned to a loss when we went back there). This knowledge invalidates our drone campaigns, and it invalidates our bombings in Yemen (and elsewhere). Even Biden acknowledges the futility of this tactic “When you say working, are they stopping the Houthis, no. Are they going to continue, yes,” [6]. Biden is admitting here to bombing Yemen, at the monetary and strategic expense of the United States. To drive this point home, we have seen mass support of the Houthis following our strikes [7], we solidified their power after trying for a decade to thwart it .

Israel’s choice of Genocide

I don’t think there is a clearer example than what we see in Gaza today. 70-80% of the the homes have damaged or destroyed [8], tens of thousands of civilians have been killed including more than 15000 children. Despite this, Hamas is still able to not only conduct operations on the ground including complex ambushes, it is able to still launch its (highly ineffective) homemade rockets towards Israel [9].

In Zionism, an Obstacle to Peace, I cover some of the costs to Israel, including the loss of American support. Since the writing of that article Israel has faced global opposition including global college protests[10]. AIPAC is now openly called out by patriotic American politicians and the crimes of those complicit in genocide are also shared to the world. As an American who grew up knowing the injustice of the zionist occupation of Palestine, I can definitively say that Palestine has more support in America now than ever. It is a late, but welcome sight. That is not ‘victory’ for Israel, both on the ground and throughout the world Israel is being defeated.

When the occupation forces began their attack on Gaza, I pointed out that they do not have the manpower to achieve their stated goal of ‘eliminating Hamas’. This was simple math based on previous battles such as the battle of Mosul. Based on that battle, israel would have needed 320,000-1.3 million combat troops to ‘eliminate Hamas’. They saw this and decided, rather than ‘take a victory’ of small scale, such as targeted assassinations etc, they would go instead for a larger scale defeat. Not only is the IDF being defeated on the ground (Hamas still killing IDF soldiers is a defeat of the IDF’s own stated goals), it is now ALSO being defeated in the global arena. More states than ever recognize Palestine and as described above, there is more opposition to the zionist occupation than ever. Had israel planned for the victory they could achieve, they would have been in a FAR superior position and would have thwarted Hamas’ goals.

Bases, what are they good for?

America currently has 4,790 bases worldwide[11] and we have 168,000 troops overseas (see below graphic)[12]. We are told that our bases throughout the world are in “America’s Interest”. Often the relationship is circular, they need to be there to protect our troops that need to be there to protect our bases. The argument made in this article is essentially that ‘its cheaper to build and maintain a base than it is an aircraft carrier’. They go on to discuss reducing costs etc. It doesn’t however appropriately factor in two critical components. First, the vulnerability of US forces scattered throughout the world, largely undefended. Second, the political cost for us occupying a nation, whether the government invited us or not.

Map of major US bases (NOT all) [13]

Why are we there?

Middle East

We were not at a constant state of war in the Middle East until we chose to be in a constant state of war in the Middle East. From the fall of the Ottoman Empire we began meddling in local affairs, we ignored the local populations and the recommendations from the King-Crane Commission [14], unsurprisingly, this was again under America’s worst President, Woodrow Wilson. In 1953 we overthrew Democracy in Iran on behalf of British control of their oil, this led to the Shah taking power until he was ultimately overthrown in 1979 [15]. One act that truly shocked me, was when I read of our accidental shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988, where 290 people were killed [16]. This meddling is the basis for our ‘required presence’ in the Middle East.

Worth Watching: Ron Paul explains blowback to idiots in this classic clip

East Asia & the Pacific

Asia differs from our deployments in the Middle East due to the areas relative stability & the fact that we have not been regularly killing people there (at least not since Vietnam). These deployments still are not in our favor. In South Korea we are stationed as a trip wire for war, South Korea buys this trip wire for a little over $1 Billion[17]. With North Korea a nuclear armed country, the risk to American life and property is absurdly high.

In Japan, our agreement has us there to defend Japan in the event of attack. The risk to American lives & property is primarily due to our presence there. Strategically, while I understand the potential threat of China , I don’t think our presence in Japan does anything but leave ~50,000 troops there to die in the event of a war. We would not be able to conduct an ‘invasion’ of China in response & as mentioned in America’s Waning Power, the US stockpile of munitions would be exhausted in a week were China to invade Taiwan (I imagine the same in regards to Japan).

Trade

I have heard some argue that ‘we need our bases to secure trade’. This absurd notion completely ignores and rejects the basis of Capitalism. If anything trade flows despite military presence, not because of it. Some of the nations we occupy & protect, predominantly trade with China, not with us. Our ongoing support of Israel is actually closing the Red Sea to us, despite our efforts. The extensive base structure is not there to stop small boats of Somali Pirates either.

Political costs

Many of our bases are located in countries you would think us more likely to topple than to support. However, the morally bankrupt and inconsistent nature of our foreign policy will have us propping up dictators wherever it ‘benefits’ us. If we are propping up a dictator in order to keep our base operational, the populace will resent us. We can see this in Bahrain, home of the US fifth fleet, it has been a major base for decades. The US state department reported on Bahrain [18]:

“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; political prisoners or detainees; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, censorship, and enforcement or threat to enforce criminal libel laws to limit expression; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organizations; restrictions on freedom of movement and residence within the territory of a state and on the right to leave the country; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations.”

Not only does supporting tyranny damage our local reputation and post-dictator staying power, it negatively impacts our credibility throughout the world. How can we claim our foreign policy is to ‘spread democracy’ when we are more often than not supporting tyranny?

Security Costs

If we leave our troops scattered too thin, we are effectively using them as ‘human tripwires’ for conflict, a ‘use to start war’ button for the military industrial complex. It is pivotal that we understand that our presence is the source of animosity and that without it (in time) that animosity will dissipate. If we continue this failed strategy we will see more dead service members like those at the largely undefended Outpost 22 where 3 US soldiers were killed[19]. The advent of cheap drone warfare & the advancements in missile/rockets make our ‘leave behind’ strategy more dangerous than ever. In previous articles I reviewed Hezbollah & Iran’s capabilities, which can grant some insights to the changing strategic landscape.

In Asia we are outmatched by China, primarily due to our proximity to mainland China. We are again there as tripwires for war, a strategy that is a net negative on every metric of victory. It is important to note, that while I think war on this front is LESS likely, it would be exponentially more devastating than any attacks in the Middle East if it occurred.

Ultimately these bases serve one cause, the profits of the aforementioned military industrial complex. No nation in the middle east has the capabilities to strike the United States. Our presence in Asia is doing little, if not having a negative impact on our security. Despite this, withdrawing from them will likely be a bit painful , but it is necessary for us to be able to operate and thrive in the world. Buying and bullying friends, what I call ‘bomb and gun diplomacy’ is a failed strategy that is crumbling as we speak.

NOTE: I cover another aspect of the damage these wars inflict on us here

Fewer Bases & less destruction

We see how our countless bases ultimately do NOT serve American interests. They are not protecting American Liberty and they exist to the detriment of property (our tax money) and American Lives. Remember the smart goals? Victory must be RELEVANT to AMERICAN lives, liberty & property. We can see how merely using the ‘bomb & the gun’ is also counter to US goals, the blowback creates significant risks to American lives, which then results in the state taking our Liberty for ‘security reasons’ & our property to further fund the war machine.

Troop Deployments & Missions

As I wrote out in War Is Still A Racket, no troops should go overseas without an explicit authorization from congress. As detailed in that article, these bills must be ‘single issue’ and follow the provided structure. I would probably even add a requirement that it be related to the overall victory (life, liberty & property). This provides simplicity in understanding and details to (hopefully) spell out how things can go wrong. I think with bills explicitly stating how many people may die and what blowback we may face, the prevalence of our destructive campaigns will significantly decrease.

A New Security Doctrine

I have laid out previously in America’s Waning Power, the imbalance between cost and effectiveness our larger equipment (carriers, tanks, jets) are faced with. The United States should adapt with the times. We can, for a fraction of the cost, share with our allies large quantities of short-medium range missiles which can continue to act as a deterrent while costing a fraction of current expenditures. Additionally, as seen by non-state actors throughout the world, training seems to be relatively easy. The cost of an F16 is ~$63 million, or 31 tomahawks. Each of these has to be equipped with missiles, some of which are individually more expensive than a tomahawk missile. The maintenance costs to fly these aircraft was a surprise to me as well. The F-16 costs ~$27,000 per flight hour, the F-35 about $42,000 per hour & the F-22 is a staggering $85,325 per hour[20]! The only thing that makes that seem affordable to fly is the cost to fly our bombers, the B-1B Lancer tops that list at $173,014 per hour[20]. Without the need for extensive and ongoing maintenance and training related to our aircraft, our troop deployments can be significantly reduced. This will obviously be a loss for the Military Industrial Complex but at reduced cost & reduced risk of American lives it is a clear victory for the American people.

CSIS [21]

A respectably defensive posture

Initially, I thought to write of why we cannot have anymore ‘tripwire’ bases. As I tried to formulate what would be ‘ok’ bases I realized why it is so hard. There are no good foreign bases. All foreign bases are putting Americans in harms way while simultaneously agitating some adversary, who likely became an adversary because of our bases’ presence. The only permanent or semi-permanent positioning of American troops should be within America’s borders. The policy of ‘world police’ has failed us. We should work to mend ties with enemies born out of this failed policy while also preparing our former hosts for our absence.

Conclusion

We are risking American lives at great monetary cost with no benefit to the American people. Additionally, our foreign policy failures have directly impacted our liberty at home. Infringements like the Patriot act & NSA spying on Americans were born out of ‘combatting enemies’ that our ongoing rampant destruction & military occupations created to begin with.

American victory, is the preservation of American Life, Liberty & Property. The best method to preserve this is to keep American Troops in America. America does not owe ANY nation allegiance and no foreign nation is worthy of compromising our victory. Our foreign bases are used to launch attacks on behalf of foreign or convoluted interests, close them all. Any act of war must be treated with the gravity it entails. It must come from congress, it cannot be a blank check for destruction, it must be SMART.

Bring our troops home, spend our money on America, stop making enemies and stop destroying our freedom.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Shop DIligent-Gear

Resources

Follow TrackAIPAC on X to see some of the bribes these politicians receive.

Iranian President Died in a Helicopter crash

Eomar — Mon, 20 May 2024 06:19:39 GMT

“If you stay in (the Marines), it’s not IF your helicopter crashes, it’s WHEN” — told to me during helicopter training

After hours of speculation, Iranian news agencies are now stating that Iranian President Raisi has died in a helicopter crash along with Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian and others [1].

CNN [1]

Conditions during the flight were incredibly foggy (seen below), combine this with the mountainous regions and the ‘reliability’ of helicopters makes for a very dangerous scenario. As per the Iranian Constitution, Vice President Mohammed Mokhber is set to assume (at least temporarily) the role of President.

seen on X

If we recall circumstances around the death of Kobe Bryant, the situations seem very similar. The debris field of the two crashes seem relatively consistent (further supporting the idea of a similar incident).

Kobe Bryant’s Helicopter Crash site

There is much speculation regarding foul play. At this time it is purely that, speculation. With the information known now (Sunday night), I would guess it was pilot error. If the conditions were as bad as pictured above, the flight never should have left the ground.

In closing a few key notes. First, the Iranian government has a lot of branches (of which I know little). Second, and I sadly think this is a thing many if not most Americans will get wrong. The President is NOT the Supreme Leader. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is still alive. Interestingly, some thought that Raisi could have been Khamenei’s successor [2]. Lastly, I don’t think much will change policy wise in Iran. The rest of the government, including Khamenei, is still there.

Al Jazeera

Subscribe now

Tit for Tat: Iran v Israel

Eomar — Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:17:01 GMT

There are a lot of ‘stories’ flying around regarding israel’s attack on Iran a few days ago. This article examines the chain of events and attempts to cut through the noise and propaganda to reveal what ‘truth’ is out there today.

Israel strikes Iranian Embassy

April 1st, 2024

While there has been a bit of a back and forth between these countries for a long time, the most recent escalation was triggered by Israel violating (even more) international law by striking an Iranian Embassy and killing several personnel including some ‘top generals’. Israel, a nation many ~~foolish~~ Americans claim is our ‘top ally’, did not warn us in advance of this strike despite its high potential for escalating us into a regional war[1]. I want to stress that embassies are OFTEN used to house military personnel and spies. Their presence does not make the location a ‘valid target’.

A reminder

I do not believe Israeli officials think they can ‘win’ an outright war with Iran. I review Iran’s military capabilities in A Wider War: Iran, a key component of the balance of power is covered in A wider War: Hezbollah. I believe the escalations are designed to lure the US into fighting another war on israel’s behalf.

Iran Strikes Israel

April 13, 2024

Iran fired a total of ~300 drones and Ballistic missiles at Israel. Iran gave 3 days advance notice that an attack would happen [2]. The intercept reported that “the US, UK, France and Jordan all shot down the majority of Iranian drones and missiles”[3]. Most western media is touting this as a resounding victory but this is the first time in decades a nation state has directly attacked Israel. It is important to note that despite advanced warning and the coordinated efforts of at least 5 nations missiles and/or drones still hit their targets in israel including 2 bases [4].

Israel’s Attack on Iran

April 19, 2024

In short, reports of an attack on Iran seem to have been exaggerated. While an attack did occur it was either very small/unsuccessful OR Iran is portraying it as such in order to deescalate. The West is claiming it was a successful missile strike.

Initial reports made it seem that a wider war was inevitable. I heard that nuclear sites were hit, that Iran will strike Israeli nuclear targets and all manner of variations. The hyperbole extended all the way to a ‘failed nuclear EMP attack by israel’ (a claim I think is absurd on MANY levels). The Iranian story was initially that a weak, failed mini-drone attack occurred.

More recent reports are stating that Israel ‘fired a missile from a warplane’ and that the plane didn’t enter Jordanian airspace [5]. At first glance, I thought this extraordinarily unlikely, if not impossible. The implied flight path to the edge of Iraq would be longer than the range of an F-35 which means it would have to refuel. Additionally, the missile launch from the F-35 would have to have traveled at least ~250 miles before hitting its target.

Iraq to Isfahan

Possible Flight Path

Potential Weapons used

Luckily, I get to learn while researching these articles. We (and thus probably israel) have long range Air-to-ground (ATG) missiles that are integrated with F-35. The AGM-158 JASSM has variants with effective ranges of 200 , 500 and 1000 miles. The JASSM is also considered a ‘stealthy’ missile [6]. This video goes more in depth on the weapon. All this to say it is possible that israel did in fact strike Iran with a missile (of this or similar type). BBC & others are pointing to satellite imagery to ‘back up’ this claim [7]. Again, this isn’t to say that israel is being truthful (that is probably the hardest thing to sell given their history of lies), this is just to say it is POSSIBLE.

The initial evidence that sources pointed to seemed a bit of a stretch to me but more recent images are clearer. It should be noted, the width of the area that was ‘targeted’ housing the radar, is about 24 feet wide (7.5 meters). The crater of a tomahawk (a weapon of similar size to the AGM-158) is ~20 feet [8]. I would assume, had a 1,000 lb bomb hit this area we would see more pronounced damage and even a bit of a debris field. For comparison, I added some before & after photos of 2017 tomahawk strikes in Syria. (more info after the photos)

BBC ‘evidence’ [7]

Google maps

CNN showing impacts of 2017 Tomahawk strikes in Syria. [9]

clearer image of blast [10]

Now reports are stating that an Israeli ‘rampage’ missile (appropriate name for a weapons used by the occupation forces). While the reported warhead size of 220 pounds seems to explain the limited visible damage, the stated range for this weapon is a mere 90 miles, either putting a jet in Iran for the launch or a different weapon being used ) [11]. Note that I had to use the ‘wayback machine’ to find this article, it has been removed sometime after Jan 14 2024.

Other reports are pointing towards a ‘blue sparrow’ missile which is often used to test israeli air defenses [12]. That said, I see nothing about these being ‘stealthy’ (they are literally used as targets) and I can’t find their potential warhead size. Another possibility is ROCKS missile system which is supposedly similar to the sparrow system. Details for this system are hard to find.

War is a Racket

I hope most of you have read my article War is STILL a Racket (if not read it!). I actually got to the end of this article before it set in that US officials are leaking ‘it was a missile strike’. So while Iran and EVEN ISRAEL are seemingly willing to ‘back down’, there is at least one American with clearance leaking info that could have (luckily seems to not have) triggered a reaction from Iran and a wider war. I hope that serves as a warning just how committed to the racket some of our ‘leaders’ can be.

Conclusion

I believe this exchange was a victory for Iran for one main reason, they showed they can directly target and hit Israel (without ‘leaving home’). This, I believe, will establish something Israel has not faced in decades, deterrence. Now, before striking Iranian targets, a calculation must be made regarding Iran’s response. It should be noted that both sides likely gathered useful intelligence from this exchange. I assume Iran learned more merely because our intelligence apparatus is robust and likely knew a lot already.

Despite Iran establishing deterrence, it does seem to have been hit by something as seen in the more recent photo above. It appears to me that it would need to have been a smaller payload than the AGM-158 (1,000 lbs). I doubt it was a Rampage due to the range, that leaves us with the ROCKS or something else. Iran is sticking to the story of a ‘child toy’ drone attack ‘not linked to israel’ [13] .

I encourage us all to take ANY information with a healthy dose of doubt. Israel’s lies have been laughably exposed since their genocidal campaign started. While Iran is on the right side of the Palestine issue , that does not make them a beacon of truth. Regardless of what actually occurred, it seems that Iran is (at least for now) willing to de-escalate. Russian President Vladimir Putin advised against escalation, I believe in order to keep Iranian drones flowing into their conflict, not being used elsewhere. WW3 is (thankfully) in a holding pattern for a little bit longer.

Kremlin News telegram

One last note. The headlines seem to have been dominated by this tit-for-tat exchange between Iran and Israel. The unfortunate consequence is that fewer people and news agencies seem to be covering the continuing genocide in Gaza. People there are still being starved, shot and bombed to death. Let us hope and push for that to end now.

Subscribe now

Thank you for reading this article, if you enjoyed it, please help me reach new readers by sharing!

Leave a comment

Resources

A Wider War: Iran

Eomar — Sun, 14 Apr 2024 00:23:43 GMT

As Israeli provocations seem to be dragging the world into war, I initially thought to jump straight into a piece on a world war. In the hopes we don’t get there, I am writing instead on the military capabilities of Iran. I think most Americans have lost sight of the reality that it is MUCH harder to project (ie invade) another country than it is to defend your own. In this article I will try to touch on some of the strategic challenges us and/or our “allies” would face in this conflict. Much like any of our wars, I do not see a winnable objective for the United States. For Israel, I believe their objective IS to get the US to fight Iran on their behalf. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the United States to get involved, either directly or indirectly.

Geography

Size

Iran is a large country. The visualizations below show it would span from Texas up through Oregon and encompass Nevada, Arizona, Utah and into Idaho, Colorado and Wyoming. For European readers, Iran (1,648,270 square km) is about the same size as France, Germany, Spain and the UK combined (1,658,640 square km). Iran has borders with several countries including Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and others. In addition it has access to the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and The Caspian Sea.

Iran vs United States {1]

Iran vs Europe [2]

Terrain

“Mountainous terrain held by riflemen who know what they are about cannot be militarily defeated”. - Buppert’s Law of Military Topography

The CIA factbook describes Iranian terrain as “rugged, mountainous rim; high, central basin with deserts, mountains; small, discontinuous plains along both coasts”, for a point of reference, Afghanistan is described by them as “mostly rugged mountains; plains in north and southwest”.

The Rockies have an average height of ~6,600 feet, and a highest peak of 14,460ft [1], the Zagros have an average height of 7,650 feet and a highest peak of 14,629 ft [2]. I put this here because I think most ‘military interested’ Americans understand the strategic barrier that the Rocky Mountains would pose to any ‘Western invasion’ of the US. Now imagine a slightly higher mountain range forming an entire border, that is the Zagros Mountains in Iran.

Wikipedia [3]

Topographic-map.com [4]

If you look back at ‘America’s Waning Power’ I describe some of the vulnerabilities tanks face on the modern battlefield. The fact is Iran has a mountain border that would render our tanks and likely our armored vehicles effectively useless. A Foreign Policy article details the introduction of tanks into Afghanistan (which by the way, didn’t occur until 2010). This quote I believe emphasizes the challenges anyone would face with an invasion of Iran :

“the two most populated Mangal valleys in eastern Afghanistan had not seen a coalition or Afghan Army patrol in nearly two years — roughly since the introduction of the U.S. military’s lumbering MRAP (mine-resistant ambush-protected) vehicles, which are incapable of traversing the passes leading to their lands.” [5]

Subscribe now

Borders & Relations

Examining border nations is important because strikes against Iran would need to have some level of acceptance or support from bordering nations. Without an overland path, strikes would need to be carried out from sea, which involves significantly more strategic risk for the attacker.

534 km border with Turkey
- Turkey is a NATO ally, though I question if they would get involved or allow for launching of attacks from their country. Trade has been increasing between the two nations and as a Muslim nation, the Turkish population has been very actively protesting against Israel.
1599 km border with Iraq
- Iraq is already trying to kick us out due to our support of the Gaza Genocide, if we try to launch operations from there, we would likely face local armed resistance
959 km border with Pakistan
- Recently the two nations conducted strikes within the other’s borders claiming to be hitting ‘terrorist’ groups. While relations dropped off swiftly, they also began to rebuild them shortly after [6].
1148 km border with Turkmenistan
- Has strong ties to Iran [7]
  - Korpeje Kordkuy pipeline (120 mile long) natural gas pipeline between the 2 countries [8].
44 km border with Armenia
- The relationship with Iran is “warm” and has been since the 90s [9]
689km border with Azerbaijan
- traditionally rather hostile relationship due to Iranian support of Armenia [10] though it has ‘warmed’ a bit recently, perhaps due to increasing trade between the two nations.
- Likely the largest threat to Iran, Israel helped Azerbaijan in its war against the Armenians [11]. There are multiple reports (from sources I am not familiar with) that Israel has ‘bought’ access to use Azerbaijan to launch attacks against Iran and that they have stationed aircraft there.
“Tehran maintains particularly close military-to-military ties with Syria and Iraq and has signed basic military cooperation agreements with Afghanistan, Belarus, China, Oman, Russia, South Africa, Sudan, and Venezuela’ [12]

Strategic Positioning

Tel-Aviv, the military and population capital of Israel
- From Tel-Aviv to Tehran is about 975 miles.
Persian Gulf, likely a staging/launch point for our naval forces and Marines
- From northern Persian Gulf to Tehran is ~400 miles
Home to the US 5th fleet, a major strategic location for resupply
- From Bahrain to Tehran is ~670 miles
Straits of Hormuz, 20-30% of the worlds oil travel through these waters[13]
- The Straits of Hormuz are about 55 miles wide at the northern point

Military of Iran

The general composition of the Iranian military is detailed below by the Defense Intelligence Agency (2019 report). I don’t know how significant a role the ground forces will have other than the support functions for air defense and a deterrent (along with the above described mountains) for any ground presence by invading countries.

Iran Military Power- dia.mil [12]

Airforce

The current aircraft utilized by Iran are a bit dated but it does boast over 200 aircraft so I don’t think it is completely negligible. In addition there are a handful of ‘home made’ Kowsar (F-5 copies) in service though the role and capabilities are questionable [13]. The Iranian Airforce is in for a major update however with acquisition of two dozen Russian Su-35 [14], a highly advanced 4th generation aircraft. Despite the advantages 4th and 5th gen fighters have over these more dated aircraft, the West’s aircraft are not invulnerable. In a simulated encounter a French pilot ‘shot down’ an F-22 from a Rafale (a 4.5 gen fighter). The Rafale is not alone in these simulated ‘shoot downs’, a mirage-2000 (4th gen) as well a T-38 (a training aircraft but maybe 3rd gen?) [15] . Similar outcomes are highly unlikely in an air-to-air fight, but not impossible.

Iran Military Power - dia.mil [12]

Aeroflap [16]; fighter-generations[17]

Air Defense

Odin.tradoc.amy.mil [18]

As we can see, Iran has a variety of air defense systems available to it. I Think it would take an entire article just to cover the span of weapons so I will instead focus on some highlights. The S20-C is an upgraded S-300 which can fire the missiles used in the S-400 system [18a]. This system would likely created ‘unsustainable losses’ to the majority of Israel’s air force if they were engaged [19].

The Misagh MANPAD (man portable air defense) systems are comparable to US stinger systems which have had a ‘high rate of success” in Ukraine [20]. There are also other older MANPADs in use by the Iranian forces as well.

Two newer systems were revealed earlier this year, the Azarakhsh and the Arman systems. According to Iranian military officials, the Arman missile defense system “has a medium range and a high altitude that can identify targets at 180km and engage and destroy them at 120km” [21]. The Azarakhsh low-altitude air defense system is likely to be us against helicopters, drones and cruise missiles [22]. They are armed with Azarakhsh missiles which were previously used in air-to-air roles and have a 10 km range.

Azarakhsh air defense system [22]

What is significant is the multi-layered defensive capabilities. There are larger systems, like the S20-C and then smaller systems like the two new releases above. The MANPADs can be operated by a single individual. This makes striking targets within Iran an extremely dangerous operation. Even if an advanced platform like an F-35 penetrated and destroyed some targets in Iran it would then have to get out past (dated) aircraft, multiple air defense systems like the S20-C and the Azarakhsh and just lone soldiers or teams in the mountains with MANPADs. Each layer would also have the advantage of knowing that an enemy jet is in the area. Entering Iran would also expose the more ‘noticeable’ (to targeting systems) engines of our aircraft. In addition to layered defense, many of the Iranian platforms are highly mobile, this means it will be difficult to identify ‘safe’ routes and difficult to conduct retaliatory strikes against the SAM sites.

Navy & Coastal Defense

Iran’s navy is significantly larger than Israel’s with 261 vessels (including merchant marine ships) vs 64 [23]. Despite this, their navy seems mostly focused on controlling their coastal waters vs force projection. Other than mine laying and harrying operations I think its role will be rather limited. If the US gets involved directly, things become much harder for Iran, if not, some of their vessels likely could expand their reach and force projection. For example, the midget class Yono subs are based on the North Korean vessels which reportedly sank a South Korean Corvette in 2010[24]. A more recent development was the firing of Ballistic missiles from a ship and hitting targets over 1,000 miles away (1700km) [25]. Importantly, Iran does have Coastal Defense Cruise Missiles and capable of striking throughout the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Additionally they have Antiship Ballistic missiles which have “terminal seekers that steer the missile to its target” [12].

Iran military power -dia.mil [12]

Missile Armament

It is surprisingly difficult to get an accurate number of missiles that Iran has. DOD stated they have ‘over 3000’ ballistic missiles [26]. It was reported Iran sent 400 missiles to Russia [27]. Additionally, Hezbollah, reportedly ‘an arm of Iran’ has over 150,000 rockets and missiles. I feel like there is a large gap in the armament reported when sources say ‘over 3000’. Perhaps 3000 is the number available to strike against Israel (a focus of US policy in the area). Given that Hezbollah has such a sizeable armament, I’d imagine that Iran has more or at least a comparable amount, they are likely often left out of conversations because the range is comparatively limited. Despite the more limited range, many of these weapons would likely wreak havoc in the Straits of Hormuz and other near targets as well as any who tried to enter Iran or its neighbors. Increased proliferation of shorter range munitions could also expand the threat range that they offer.

Iran has reportedly developed the Fattah hypersonic missile which has a range of 1,400km [28]. Hypersonic missiles pose a significant risk thanks to their ability to penetrate air-defense systems. While these weapons were at once described as ‘unstoppable’ it appears that the Russian hypersonic missiles have been shot down multiple times as their speed “substantially decrease while maneuvering”[29].

Iran Military Power - dia.mil [6]

For context, Tehran to Tel-Aviv is ~975 miles (1500km), western Iran to Tel-Aviv is ~650 miles (1000km). In terms of repelling attacks, Israel reportedly has 10 Iron dome batteries [30], I dive into their capabilities a bit in Wider War: Hezbollah. I think their are substantial risks and limitations here. I assume, utilizing the Iron Dome reveals its location to some degree. Moving it and setting it up again, while ‘easy’ takes several hours. This means that they cannot constantly shuffle the systems without leaving defense gaps. A consistent stream of attacks would then paint a target for Iranian drones , long range missiles or even their hypersonic missiles.

Drones

According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, “UAVs are Iran’s most rapidly advancing air capability.” Iran has a variety of drones as we see below. In addition to long range drones that can fly from Iran to Israel for strikes, Iran has also been ‘sharing’ this tech with regional allies. The proliferation of Iranian drones throughout the region means attacks can come from many different areas both near and far.

Sourced from [31] and [12b]

Conclusion

As I am writing this, news broke that Iran has launched a drone attack against Israel in retaliation for its bombing the Iranian embassy[32]. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the United States intercepted and shot down several of these drones. This in turn, could make US launch sites valid targets (at least in the minds of Iranian leaders). If this were to occur the war would likely continue to escalate.

I want to reiterate, I do not see a winnable objective for us in this fight. We (Americans) could surely hit some targets in Iran but I do not believe we can do so with impunity (nor can the Israelis). Fighting Iran will not be similar to fights with insurgent groups we have fought in the past (it will be worse). We will not be able to line up thousands of troops and tanks on the border and push through the country like we did in Iraq. The mountains are likely largely impassable and its unclear if any of the surrounding nations would volunteer to host this force.

The War Hawks, whether bought by the military industrial complex or its sister group of Israel lobbyists, will clamor for war. They aren’t motivated by America’s best interest, they are motivated by money as I described in War is Still a Racket. The only thing worth fighting for is our lives and our rights and neither are at risk here. American leaders must avoid ANY further involvement and seek immediate de-escalation. If we continue on this path best case we further lose our influence and power in the region. The worst case scenario is a wider war that spreads even beyond the middle east. The conditions are ripe for world war and we must tread carefully to maintain peace.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Resources

War is STILL a Racket

Eomar — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:32:32 GMT

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."-- War is a Racket, Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler

Racket (noun): A fraudulent scheme, enterprise or activity. A usually illegitimate enterprise made workable by bribery or intimidation (merriam-webster)

When did the Military Industrial Complex sink its claws into American policy makers? I don’t really know. I know it happened before World War One. I know because General Smedley Butler warned us that ‘War is a Racket’. I know because Eisenhower warned us of the Military Industrial Complex in his farewell speech. No one heeded these warnings. We are a nation of war. A nation that plunders abroad and at home. We are trained to ignore it, to accept it. Our young men & women go overseas not to fight our ‘enemies’ but to create them. They are needed to fuel the ever hungry war machine. Fueled by blood and sacrifice, motivated by quarterly dividends & ‘speaking jobs’, War is a Racket.

War is a Racket

General Smedley D. Butler was the most decorated Marine in US history , including two Medals of Honor. He wrote of the dangers of the military industrial complex and traveled the country warning all who would listen. I encourage everyone to read ‘War is a Racket’. It is a fantastic piece and when you read it and realize just how far back this goes, it is incredibly eye opening. It dissuades you of the false hope that this is some ‘new phenomenon’ that will soon fade back from whence it came. Make no mistake, the racket is bigger now, the stakes are higher. The claws of our offense industry have left wounds in the soul of America. We need peace, we need change, real change. The first step is awareness & knowledge.

Who Makes the Profits

The “Defense” industry

The “Department of Defense” was only named such in 1947, before that it was appropriately named the “War Department”. Similarly, our ‘defense industry’ is not about ‘defense’, ‘war industry’ may be a better name but it is best known as the Military Industrial Complex, MIC for short. The MIC today is comprised of dozens of companies, including those you have heard of like Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon and those you may not have. It is important to note that while we often think of the MIC as ‘bombs and bullets’ it is also ‘band-aids’ and now technology as well. Below we can see the largest DOD contractors by contract value [1]. These companies make the missiles, the bullets, the planes, the tanks, the communications EVERYTHING needed for a war. The problem is, they don’t stop at building the ‘tools’ for war, they also build the case for war. They create, through corrupted politicians, consensus for war. What politicians can’t do they push through the media. The MIC can create wars from ‘cause to bullets’.

Politicians

Before becoming George Bush’s Vice President, Dick Cheney was the CEO of a company named Halliburton. Cheney was NEVER apologetic for pushing us into an immoral and unjust war in Iraq, he stated “I was a strong advocate of going into Iraq, I think it was the right decision then, and I still believe that today” [2]. He also was a BIG fan of the war in Afghanistan lasting indefinitely. Well, it was the right decision for Dick Cheney. PURELY by chance (I’m sure) KBR was one of the largest beneficiaries of the war in Iraq. KBR received $39.5 billion in federal contracts, CNN also notes that ‘The US hired more private companies in Iraq than in any previous wars”[3].

Congress

Dick Cheney was one of our worst war mongers, but he is certainly not alone. The corruption via the below methods is rampant. It should be noted that Congressional members make $174,000 a year. Remember that number. I highlight a few cases below, but I want to emphasize, this is not a partisan issue, both parties are guilty. Almost every elected official is guilty to some degree. If you are curious about candidates you may vote for this year, check out opensecrets.org.

Lobbying

Lobbying (as defined by the IRS) is when an organization attempts “to influence legislation” this includes “urging the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting or opposing legislation”. The defense industry spent over $153 million dollars in lobbying in 2023. It is important to note that 67% of the lobbyists were former government officials[4]. So in addition to whatever is spent in their efforts, lobbying groups also send a clear message: ‘Work with us now, while in office, and you can work with us later when you are not’. This is the ‘revolving door’ that you have likely heard of already. On the chart below (data from opensecrets.org), we can see that the majority ‘step through’ this revolving door within a year of leaving office. You may also notice that some took an alternative path, from lobbying, to government, back to lobbying (I assume the government connections are good for business).

Proponents of lobbying (likely those in government or in the lobbying industry) will state that ‘lobbyists help officials make informed decisions’. Unfortunately, it seems to play out that it helps officials make informed decisions about what is best for the lobbyist and the government official’s future income. Comparably.com, a website that shows salary information for job seekers, shows that the average DC lobbyist is making $128,000 per year.

When we look at the education of those elected to government, it seems ‘government office’ is just a step in their career paths. While the majority of elected officials now hold at least a bachelor’s, their degrees are most often in relatively useless subjects. Of those newly elected in the 118th congress , “this group studied social and behavioral sciences with political science leading the way”[5]. This was followed by ‘Humanities’ and history. According to comparably.com, the average salary for a political science major is a mere $51,000 [6] and the unemployment rate is 6.9%[7] (the national average for all unemployment in 2023 was 3.7%). When we look at the ‘careers’ of the 118th congress we see most have not had a job outside of government[8]. I point out the education and prior career information not to ‘shame’ those with low income careers/opportunities, but to point out the incentive for government officials to ‘play ball’ with the lobbying groups. To a large degree, it seems that it is revolving door or bust for our elected representatives.

Campaign Donations

There is a ton of campaign finance information, it is publicly available on the FEC website or on opensecrets.org. They commit this corruption right in front of us knowing they will still get elected and still be allowed to loot the American taxpayer.

The extent of corruption is clear when you see the difference in ~~bribes~~ campaign contributions when someone gets power. Looking at now Speaker Mike Johnson (R) paints a very clear picture for us. In 2022, his number one contributor was AIPAC ($25,000 in donations), a foreign government agency with unparalleled access and power in our government. These ‘contributions’ paid off, amidst turmoil in the US, the first bill brought to the house by AIPAC’s new speaker was a pro-Israel bill. The 2023-2024 year, the pro-israel industry donated $233,000 to his ‘campaign’. Lobbyists granted another $117,000, Securities & Investment gave $138,000, Defense gave ~$35,000.

This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats, it is universal corruption. It is a bi-partisan phenomenon. In 2023 Hakeem Jeffries (D), the house minority leader, received $323,000 from AIPAC. Net pro-Israel income for Jeffries was $676,622, he received $881,973 from securities and investment. I encourage you to go to www.opensecrets.org and see who your elected ‘representatives’ are truly working for.

Looking again at Mike Johnson, while only $35,000 here explicitly says defense, the other figures are at least in part ‘defense’. Israel and our support of it is the cause of most of our middle east tensions, it is both a consistent customer of our defense industry and a consistent proponent of our regime change wars in the region. Every time you hear a politician advocate for war with Iran, know that Israel, often via AIPAC, paid for that message. Lobbyists are split among various groups and I haven’t looked at each trail to break it up further. Lets not forget that Pharma ($52,000) are large war beneficiaries, Pfizer was the fourth largest contractor listed above along with others in top spots.

The finance money might seem like a separate entity altogether but they have a strongly vested interest in the war machine. As we can see in the chart below (Institutional percentages sourced from yahoo finance), “securities & investment” are also defense companies, at the very least indirectly. For those listed as private, it doesn’t mean ‘family owned’, it is instead owned by a select few finance companies and not publicly traded.

Both of Jefferies(D) an Johnson(R), in fact blend in well with their colleagues. This type of corruption and bribe taking is RAMPANT. Since 1990, 34 members of the house have received a total of over $1 million from defense, 352 received more than their annual salary in this timeframe. This year alone, 3 senators and 3 members of the house have received more than their salary from the ‘defense’ industry [9]. It is done in public because they know partisanship and fear will keep you from voting them out. From congress to pharma to finance, everyone but the American people are ‘winning’ on war.

Stock Purchases

A 2020 report showed that around the time of Trump assassinating General Qassem Soleimani, “51 members of Congress and their spouses own between $2.3 and 5.8 million worth of stocks in companies that are among the top 30 defense contractors in the world”[10]. Several of them sit on committees relevant to defense spending. Whenever fresh violence ‘kicks off’ these stocks see an uptick. This conflict of interest further pushes us towards war. Capital Trades wrote on January 22nd 2024 about this subject showing Lockheed with 14% gains and Raytheon at 22% gains since the 10/7 Hamas attack [11] and ensuing munition hungry genocide .

prospect.org [9]

“Speaking” fees

The Intercept recently published an article where they showcase General Mark Milley going from a salary of $204,000 in the military to “compensation in the millions”. The author also states the absurdly high speaking fees these ‘revolving door’ beneficiaries demand. Hillary Clinton received over $600,000 in one year, with her husband, they totaled $153 million dollars since Bill left the White House[12]. Stanley McChrystal reportedly received (in addition to multiple board positions with six-figure compensation) “high five-figure speaking fees” [13]. For an example of McChrystal’s ~$60,000-$80,000 speeches, here is one from Stanford.

Who Pays the Bills

We see how much politicians gain from the Racket, but who is paying for this? The cost is measured in different ways. First, our Veterans are still paying the cost as they were when Butler wrote his piece. Next is the millions of lives across the world that have died as fuel for the war machine, often yielding no positive outcome for America. Lastly the tax payers, robbed and over burdened by debt and inflation, keep losing out monetarily.

Veterans

This hasn’t changed much since 1935, Veterans pay a high cost to keep the war machine running. Butler described the process well enough it bears simply copying it here:

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face"! This time they had to do their own readjusting, sans mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice, sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades.

Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.

I’ve written before about how we are conditioned to accept death and war casualties. The conditioning we all experience is nothing in comparison to that which is instilled in us in the military. ‘Yut Kill’ was a common thing to hear in response to about anything. Trying to time your machine gun bursts? “Die Motherfucker Die!” should be about right. The list goes on but you get the idea. The mass psychology that Butler referenced was turned into a literal science following WW2 to ensure our troops would consistently engage the enemy when the time came. This article provides some added information for those interested.

We were also instilled with (or came with) the desire for decorations. This love of medals and ribbons isn’t new, Butler wrote of it as well, citing Napoleon “All men are enamored of decorations… they positively hunger for them”. Ask any infantryman which is most important in a stack and barring the presence of medals for valor, the Combat Action Ribbon (CAR) holds the most prestige. For me it was elusive, my ‘combat’ in Iraq was limited to a few incoming rocket attacks. I later volunteered to extend to go to Afghanistan, at least in part, to obtain that ‘missing’ ribbon. Near the end of our workup, paperwork errors left me with the choice of re-enlisting or getting out (I got out).

I say this to show you the culture in the military, it gives our troops a support system. A meta-analysis for Combat-Related PTSD shows us that ‘Discharging a weapon’ and ‘seeing someone wounded/killed’ are leading risk factors for PTSD, yet being ‘active’ military, reduces the risk of PTSD [14]. Part of the problem our troops face is that the support system of military culture is gone once they return home. That ‘final about face’ that Butler mentions is returning to a world that doesn’t want to know about violence. The American people vote for and support wars but want to avoid any of the messy details.

The Final About Face

Veteran unemployment is low with a rate of 3.1 across all veterans in 2022. When we look a bit deeper into the employment numbers there is some room for concern. In the post 9/11 Veterans roughly 20% of them are not in the labor force[15]. This means either they never sought work (perhaps due to disability or other life factors) or they gave up on seeking work. For a group that is struggling to find purpose post service, I believe lacking employment is a significant risk.

A 2002 study showed that Divorce or separation amongst combat veterans is 62% more likely than amongst the general population [16]. PTSD has been associated with higher rates of divorce, substance abuse and various other problematic symptoms. One of the things I see veterans struggle most with is losing their kids via a divorce or separation. There is a very real cost of sending our young men and women overseas, it can quite literally destroy families and lives.

The chart below depicts suicide rates per 100k in the US, the blue shades are Veterans, the red shades are total US population. General population information is from the CDC [17] and the veteran data is from the VA [18]. The last ‘about face’ that Butler describes too often ends in suicide. In 2001 for 18-34 years old, the overall suicide rate was 9.4 per 100k, for veterans it was 23.5. In 2011, it was 10.3 for general population and 32.3 for Veterans. In 2020 it was 13.1 for general population and 46.3 for Veterans.

We owe it to our young men and women serving in the military to make war a true last resort. Many advocate ‘taking care of us’ when we return (at least in rhetoric), we need to also do our best to never send our troops in the first place.

Note: Bill Buppert covers “Moral Injury” in this episode of his Chasing Ghosts podcast, I encourage those interested in this ‘cost’ (especially fellow veterans) to listen.

Tax Payers

As I assume many of you read ‘America’s Waning Power’ I’m not going to cover (too much) in regards to our ballooning inflation and debt, you can read about that here. The key points are that our purchasing power is about 3% of what it was before the Federal Reserve act (1913) and we have $34 Trillion in debt now compared to $391 Billion in 1971.

We spent roughly $3 Trillion on our Iraq war, a war that we did not need to fight [19]. We spent $2.3 Trillion on the Afghanistan War [20]. I don’t know if this include the billions of dollars in equipment we left behind when we admitted defeat and evacuated from the country.

As a glimpse into the cost of our empire, we have 11 aircraft carriers, each strike group costs $6.5 million per day to operate[21]. Totaling $71.5 million per day for all 11 carrier groups. $26 billion per year. Below it is pictured where the ‘department of defense’ has our fleets located. One is near the United States, we have COAST GUARD ships near Indonesia and Australia.

USNI News [22]

Recently Biden asked for $850 Billion defense budget. Our elected officials are not only taxing us ‘now’ in return for their bribes, they are taking on debt in return for their bribes. This is debt that your kids and grandkids will have to deal with, in one way or another.

How to smash the Racket

“It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war” — General Smedley Butler

This portion is different than most of my writing as it is proposals, ideas (some more thought out than others) on how to ‘smash the racket’ .

Profits

I detailed above the many ways that congress and other profit from war. The first step in avoiding war is in taking the profits out, then it lies in adding a cost. For congress there are a few ‘rules’ I think would help to offset the warmongers.

No individual stock purchasing and no foreign investments, can own US-stock index funds that exclude defense stocks. A defense stock will be defined as any company who receives more than 15% of their revenue from the DOD.
1. No proxy holdings either, if a company owns >5% stake in a defense company they are added to the blacklist.
ONLY 2 methods of campaign contributions
1. direct (a person/company contributes directly to an individual campaign)
2. interest ( a person/company contributes to an interest and it is distributed as described below)
3. No PACS, No Super PACS, NO shell agencies of any types with the intent of ‘gaming’ the donation limits described below.
Implement a cap on Direct Contributions
1. a 2023 analysis shows that the median fundraising for someone running for reelection in 2022 was $2.1 million. a freshman raised median $2.9 million , an incumbent in a ‘toss up’ raised median of $5.3 million. Senators running for reelection raised $11.4 million [23]. Where do these people loyalties lie? With the people and government paying them ~$174,000 salary or ‘special interests’ paying millions?
2. Cap direct contributions at
  1. House: 3x salary (meaning the most they could raise is $522,000)
  2. Senate: 5x salary
  3. President: 10x salary
3. Require a survey to accompany any donations
  1. It is a lot harder to interpret 10,000 $200 donations from constituents than it is to interpret a $2 million donation from Lockheed PAC.
  2. This proposed survey will require individual to assign percentages to a variety of political categories, thus showing the recipient what is ‘important’ to the donors and showing the voters who is supporting each candidate
Rather than limit individual donations to each campaign, limit donations to each level/category
1. House: $3,300 Limit
2. Senate: $3,300 Limit
3. President: $3,300 Limit
Issue contributions
1. Allow for issue contributions at each federal level. Individuals may donate to a cause, they can use any amount of their individual contribution limit + 1/5 of their annual contribution limit.
2. Cap interest contributions at
  1. House: 1.5x salary (meaning the most they could raise is $261,000)
  2. Senate: 2.5x salary
  3. President: 5x salary
3. Candidates assign ‘interests’ a percentage totaling to 100%. the amount raised there is divided up based on the % given. Any remaining is rolled into the next election.
  1. candidate A:
    1. Defense: 50%
    2. 2A rights: 10%
    3. Anti-Abortion: 20%
    4. etc…
  2. candidate B:
    1. 2A rights: 30%
    2. Federal legalization of weed: 20%
    3. School Choice: 30%
    4. etc…
  3. since both assign a % to 2A rights, candidate B will get 3x the amount as candidate A. Candidate A would get ‘all’ of the “defense” donations, but at least people would see where their interests are. Remember this is still capped as described above.
FEC directory
1. As the ability to run expensive & flashy campaigns is eliminated, we still want to ensure people get to know who they are voting for. The FEC will utilize the Presidential public funding of elections budget detailed here to maintain a directory for those who file and meet the obligation required to be on their ballets. The directory will include:
  1. campaign websites
  2. individual campaign donation information broken down by stated interests
  3. % the candidate elected to receive of the various interests.
2. The distribution of individual donation interests and the percentage the candidate chose to accept will also be printed and provided with or on the ballets. At minimum the top 3 interests from each will be printed directly on the ballet to ensure that is visible.
Congressional healthcare plans will be replaced with the access to the VA Health System. Their minor dependents can still be enrolled in the current healthcare plan.
Add a cost. If your representative votes for war YOU pay a war tax (2% for house, 1% for Senate, .5% for President). Income from this ‘war tax’ can only be spent on Veteran Benefits. If you are unhappy about it then vote them out or make them change their vote. This tax must NOT be automatically deducted. It must be paid via a manual process of either online banking or writing a check.

Acts of War

Congress has done its best to avoid their Constitutional duties. They skirt the war powers so that they can have deniability. This must not be allowed to continue. We need to require single issue bills for any troops or vessels to leave the territory or waters of the United States. Our “economic zone” includes several Pacific Islands now, so language has to accommodate troop movements to and from there. Inter-zone travel between the ‘mainland’ US and the Pacific Islands would be allowed but can not travel further west than the Guam economic zone nor further south than the American Samoa economic zone in their transit between zones.

geology.com

Each bill must include the below structure. As a requirement for the introduction of the ‘final draft’ of the bill for floor vote, each member of congress may submit their own proposal for each or any section. As determined in meeting the 1/5th threshold for a “yea and Nay” vote [24], a 1/10th support for a submission allows it to be included in the final voting of the bills language. Each proposal that met the 1/10th support for each section must receive a recorded vote to determine the final language of the bill. The runner up for each category will also be recorded and presented on the bill.

Orientation
Situation
Mission
Cost
1. direct
2. opportunity
Goal
Best Possible Outcome
1. Resulting Loss of Life
  1. Friendly
  2. Adversary
Worst Possible Outcome
1. Resulting Loss of Life
  1. Friendly
  2. Adversary
2. Blowback potential
  1. Terrorist attacks?
  2. Reputation loss?
  3. War
    1. non-peer
    2. near-peer
    3. peer
    4. multi-state/actors
  4. mitigation/expansion dollar costs
  5. mitigation/expansion Loss of Life

Deployment/Mission Bill, an example

Orientation
1. We, the United States Congress have a belief that, left unchecked China may invade Taiwan. Taiwan is a major chip producer and considered by many a ‘key strategic location’.
Situation
1. Carrier group consists of 7500 sailors and 7 ships including the following classes:
  1. aircraft carrier, missile cruisers, anti-aircraft ships and destroyers
2. China has significant long range anti-ship missiles as well as nuclear capabilities. They have ‘x’ aircraft and …. (you get the idea)
Mission
1. The USS Too Expensive carrier and whatever carrier group will head to and patrol the waters along a designated route that is designed to show presence but not provoke attack by taking an overly aggressive route. This will occur on the 15 day of May 2024 to the 15th day of August 2024.
Cost
1. Direct
  1. $6.5 million per day
2. Opportunity
  1. Joint operations off Australian Cost will not be conducted
Goal
1. ensure China doesn’t invade Taiwan
Best Possible Outcome
1. no event, peace maintains
2. Resulting Loss of Life
  1. Friendly = 0
  2. Adversary = 0
Worst Possible Outcome
1. adopted
  1. Immediate Loss of Life
    1. Friendly = 7500
    2. Adversary = 8000
  2. Blowback potential
    1. Terrorist attacks?
      1. likely
    2. Reputation loss?
      1. likely
    3. War
      1. Peer war with other state and non-state actors.
  3. mitigation/expansion dollar costs
    1. Measured in trillions of dollars
  4. mitigation/expansion Loss of Life
    1. Friendly = millions
    2. Adversary = millions
2. runner up (not adopted)
  1. Immediate Loss of Life
    1. Friendly = 500
    2. Adversary = 700
  2. Blowback potential
    1. Terrorist attacks?
      1. likely
    2. Reputation loss?
      1. likely
    3. War
      1. Not likely
  3. mitigation/expansion dollar costs
    1. Measured in Billions of dollars
  4. mitigation/expansion Loss of Life
    1. Friendly = Hundreds
    2. Adversary = Thousands

To Hell with War

While during Butler’s time the war was sold as a ‘war to end all wars’ , the wars today are sold as a necessity because ‘they hate us for our freedom’. The reality is our foreign policy is a disaster that spawns new enemies via collateral damage and the resulting blowback. The war machine, the racket, quite literally supplies a war for the next generation of suffering fueled profits.

American troops place an extraordinary amount of trust in the American people and the American government, a trust that it truly does not deserve. While our troops place their lives and perhaps their very souls on the line for ‘the mission’ Congress (as mentioned) dodges their duty of wielding the War Powers. The people can hardly be bothered to remember we are at war. We saw in Iraq, within a few years of the war we experienced ‘~~buyers~~ Warmonger remorse’. The troops who sacrificed for this ‘wrong decision’ cannot so easily unwind the price they paid. Its not just taxes for them. We have a responsibility to ensure if we send troops out of our borders it is an absolute necessity and a good, moral cause.

PEW [25]

The idea that we can ‘secure Democracy’ or ‘spread Democracy’ by fighting around the world has been proven false time and again. As Butler stated following World War One “Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of a democracy than it had then”. Since 2001, that is CERTAINLY true. The “Patriot” act, NSA spying, ‘Citizens United’, controlled media, militarized police all show the failure of this Racket to ‘secure Democracy’. These and many other examples are direct infringements upon our freedom. If you want to ‘secure our freedom’ keep our troops home on DEFENSE. If you want to spread Democracy return America to the shining city upon the hill, not this bloodstained husk dealing with dictators for influence.

Conclusion

Our warmongering will come with a cost, even if we feel safe and secure today. The cost will not be ‘just’ debt, inflation and taxes. Be it from terror or war on foreign soil, the blowback for our Racket will cost the blood and lives of Americans. With increased frequency the state demands we sacrifice our freedoms for the Racket. The Freedoms that Butler described as ‘the only thing worth going to war for’ are now demanded as a cost of our wars. Make no mistake, the loss of freedom for us will be light, but it will grow heavier each year and come to full weight when our kids and grandkids are grown. These are the burdens our wars demand.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Read "War is a Racket"

Veterans For Peace

Diligent Gear

Get anti-war, pro-America, pro-Freedom gear at diligent.gear.com

Buy Diligent Gear!

Resources

Tucker Carlson & Vladimir Putin

Eomar — Fri, 09 Feb 2024 17:11:39 GMT

I lived in Russia for a little under a year. While I was there, I asked a lot of Russians how they felt about Putin (this was around 2012). I remember being surprised how many liked him, even people that acknowledged he was a dictator. I suppose they felt he was competent and cared about Russia. I think my ‘circle’ in Russia was generally well off, so that might be an aspect of it as well. In fairness, when I have mentioned this in the past couple years, I have had other Russian friends inform me of their absolute hatred of Putin.

Now, to give my personal experience in Ukraine (I visited Kiev for ~ a week). I have one interaction that is purely anecdotal, but I think interesting. While on a tour, one of the guides, speaking to my Russian-American friend, stated ‘we are all Russian!’ before granting us access to off limits areas (on the condition that we have vodka with him after). I share this only to say that I find it plausible that there some people in Ukraine who think of themselves as Russian. I think age may play a factor, this person was older and probably spent at least half their life in the USSR.

Regardless of how you feel about Putin, I knew many Russians. They were very welcoming decent people. In my time in Russia, I had ONE instance of someone angry at me for being an American. The other ~30+ Russians in the area basically told the guy to f*** off. Russians, at least in my experience do not hate us and we shouldn’t hate them. I obviously have less experience with Ukrainians, but it was also all positive.

I have seen estimates of up to half a million people dead from the war in Ukraine. I personally do not care about the border lines in eastern Europe. I want people to stop dying. I think that our media is deceptive, acts on behalf of the state and the state acts on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex. If you read my article America’s Waning Power and then heard Putin speak, you might have thought he read my article.

Subscribe now

The Interview

Tucker Carlson Network

History lessons

Putin opened up speaking about the history of Russia. It was interesting (to me), but he was essentially to establish that Ukrainians are Russians, united largely by language, family, culture, religion & history. He states that “the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great [in 1654] and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever”. He continues on about borders and politics in the USSR and concludes “So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin's will.”.

When he gets to the fall of the Soviet Union I think it becomes more relevant to the war in Ukraine. ‘And let's get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of civilized nations, nothing like this happened’. Putin goes into some details, he mentions “The promise was that NATO would not expand eastward. But it happened five times.”. This is true, US Secretary of State James Baker stated “not one inch eastward”[1]. The west, as Putin pointed out, basically shrugged and said, well it wasn’t a formal treaty so it doesn’t matter. Putin then goes on to say that Russia tolerated it because they essentially wanted to be ‘welcomed’ to the world markets. Speaking on Boris Yeltsin’s visit to Congress: “Remember, he spoke in Congress and said the good words: God bless America. Everything he said were signals, let us in.”

Putin details a few other historical events as Russian olive branches and Western rebukes. What is interesting is how he points out assurances and confirmations from Presidents, only later to be rebuked after they speak ‘with their teams’.

Russia trying to join NATO. This did happen. An earlier interview Putin stated “Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilized world.” [2]
Putin claimed American support of Chechen Rebels. Russiamatters.org (which has ties to Harvard & Carnegie Corporation of New York) states this is partially true. Or at least partially provable. We know that US officials met with rebels. It can’t be proven that we gave direct aid [3]
Putin did offer to cooperate on a missile defense system in 2007 [4]
Putin claims that Russians were being attacked in ‘disputed’ territories.
- The main staple of this argument depends on how much you trust a referendum that had ~90% and 96% essentially reject rule from Kiev[5]. To put it mildly, I have doubts. I don’t mean its impossible that the majority would have chose this, I just don’t think we can put much stake on the referendum that did take place (anytime I see 90%+ on something I have doubts).
  - To the violence, that is indisputable. This Human Rights Watch report speaks on the use of illegal cluster munitions in Donetsk[6]. Other articles are easy to find depicting Russian war crimes as well. The only real question IMO is if Russia was justified in getting militarily involved to begin with.
  - As for Ukraine employing Nazis to fight, this is also indisputable. The Azov battalion that the West touted after the 2022 invasion, is openly a Neo-Nazi group [7]

Potential for Ukraine Resolution

The conversation then shifts to more present matters. Would Putin accept the land he now has, he doesn’t really answer the question. He alludes to being able to ‘de-nazify’ the country through agreements. Putin states agreements were “almost finalized” but “the other side threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of the Western countries”. He mentions how Zelensky issued a decree to ban talks with Russia, to be more specific and technically accurate, the decree bans talking with Russia while Putin is the president [8].

Putin reveals he hasn’t talked with Biden since before the war began, though he states “contacts are being maintained”. Tucker seemed a bit shocked by this. Putin reiterates that he will not call Biden. That “If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons”. I feel like here some real disdain and even mockery of US/Western efforts slipped in, Putin states “Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him for what? You were going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine. Oh, I'm afraid, I'm afraid. Please don't. What is there to talk about?”.

Tucker asks about potential for Russia to expand the war. Putin states “It is absolutely out of the question”. Putin mentions the fearmongering of the west and (in my opinion) accurately describes how it is used “In order to extort additional money from US taxpayers and European taxpayers in the confrontation with Russia”.

Tucker brings up Schumer’s threat of US troops deploying to Ukraine which Putin describes as “a provocation and a cheap provocation at that”. He then asks if the US has nothing better to do, “you have issues on the border, issues with migration, issues with the national debt. More than $33 trillion”. Putin also claims that the US blew up Nordstream, basically ‘who has motive and the means’ to do so.

On a multi-polar world

“You know, to use the dollar as a tool of foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest strategic mistakes made by the US political leadership”.

I left that quote above to emphasize how aware Putin is of our mistakes, while our own leadership is still seemingly unaware. Putin details how Russian foreign trade used to be ~50% Us dollars and it is now 13% . Yuan is 34% and Rubble is 34%. He states that other countries, oil producing countries, are looking at other options. “Do you even realize what is going on or not? Does anyone in the United States realize this. What are you doing? You are cutting yourself off.” If you want to know just HOW MUCH I agree with this assessment read my article America’s Waning Power.

Asked about China, Putin Highlighted 3 things.

“It is a boogeyman story. We're neighbors with China. You cannot choose neighbors, just as you cannot choose close relatives. We share a border of 1000km with them”
“We have a centuries long history of coexistence. We're used to it.”
“China's foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive. Its idea is to always look for compromise. And we can see that.”

Putin mentions that the USA is fighting things that are essentially inevitable. “It is not about the personality of the leader. It is about the elites mindset. If the idea of domination at any cost, based also on forceful actions dominates the American society, nothing will change”. Putin then points out that “Russia was the first economy in Europe last year, despite all the sanctions and restrictions.”, despite “sanctions on everything”.

Tucker asked “Who actually makes the decisions?” in the USA. Putin states he doesn’t know, he describes the US system as complex with many levels of government and influence, including within the two main parties. Putin goes on:

“In my opinion, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such an erroneous, crude, completely unjustified policy of pressure was pursued against Russia… excessive production capacities were created…There were many centers created and specialists on the Soviet Union who could not do anything else…”

He states that ‘they’ convinced American political leadership to work against Russia in order to “create on this territory several quasi state entities, and to subdue them in a divided form, to use their combined potential for the future struggle with China”. Putin is calling out again, the influence of the Military Industrial Complex and its control of our government. Putin continues:

As I already said, the world would nevertheless change regardless of how the developments in Ukraine end. The world is changing and the United States themselves. Experts are writing that the United States are nonetheless gradually changing their position in the world…The only question is how this would happen. Painfully and quickly or gently and gradually

This again is a statement I agree with. The US global empire is coming to an end, if we fight for it, it will be more painful.

On peace, again

Putin state that Russia is willing to talk but Zelensky must end his decree and negotiate. He states that they already almost had peace but the British Prime Minister Mr. Johnson “came and dissuaded us from doing this, saying it was better to fight Russia… We hear all the time, is Russia ready [to negotiate]? Yes. We have not refused. It was them who publicly refused…we could have stopped those hostilities with war a year and a half ago already.”

On other topics

Tucker asked about Russian Orthodox Christianity and its effects.

“Russia has always been very loyal to those people who profess other religions. Russian authorities were always very careful about the culture and religion of those people who came into the Russian Empire. This, in my opinion, forms the basis of both security and stability of the Russian statehood. All the peoples inhabiting Russia basically consider it their motherhood.”

On not killing, Putin replies “It is very easy when it comes to protecting oneself and one's family, one's homeland … As for religion in general, you know, it's not about external manifestations. It's not about going to church every day or banging your head on the floor. It is in the heart, and our culture is so human oriented.”

Tucker asks: “do you see God at work? Do you ever think to yourself, these are forces that are not human?” . Putin replied “No, to be honest. I don't think so”

On AI, including Elon Musk’s Neuralink. Putin closed with “But as soon as we realize that the threat comes from unbridled and uncontrolled development of AI or genetics or any other field, the time will come to reach an international agreement on how to regulate these things”.

Evan Gershkovich

Tucker begins to close and asks “Evan Gershkovich who's the Wall Street Journal reporter. He's 32. And he's been in prison for almost a year… And I just want to ask you directly, without getting into the details of it or your version of what happened, if, as a sign of your decency, you would be willing to release him to us and we'll bring him back to the United States”. Putin replies “We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them.”. Tucker presses him a bit but Putin refers to the need for it to be done through ‘channels’ and that the less it is spoken about openly the easier it is to make a deal.

They circle back a bit on things already discussed and then end the conversation.

My Conclusions

First and foremost, I mentioned several times where I agree with Putin on his assessment. This is not an endorsement of his actions, its an acknowledgement of fact, or at least of understanding his point of view. Another important note, Putin is an old spy, he knows there is growing resentment against the Military Industrial Complex, the debt, the position of the dollar etc. As I said on Twitter, If someone with American interest at heart went on a 2 hour rant against the Military Industrial Complex, I’d probably vote for them. Putin has Russia’s interests at heart (as he should), just make sure you remember that.

Putin’s stoicism is something I wish more American leaders possessed, I don’t mean at the personal level, I mean at the willingness to accept things that are beyond your control as opposed to fighting them. I recommend to anyone who will listen to read Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations.

I don’t know how, after decades of lost wars, Americans have in their mind that we will get what we demand. I know ‘we wanted’ Ukraine to win, I know ‘we wanted’ their borders to remain what they were in 2013. I don’t think that is on the table anymore. Let’s advocate for the fighting to end. Let’s shift our focus to demand measures to ensure the safety and liberty of those who may now be under Russian rule. No reprisals, no punishments, full amnesty.

I applaud Tucker for doing this interview. I imagine it was an intimidating situation to say the least. Yes, he will also benefit from it but I honestly believe we all did. If you disparage people for merely opening a dialogue with our ‘adversaries’ know that you are doing a disservice to our country. Dialogue is how we avoid wars. I shouldn’t have to emphasize how important and noble that goal is.

Sound bites will not do, we need long form interviews. Not just for people we like but also those we don’t like and those we are trying to figure out. Putin stated “You said a serious talk, so bear with me please." . I agree (again) serious matters MUST be discussed at LENGTH. Our political debates are absurd sound-bite generating trash and are a disservice to Americans. We must demand better so we can expose politicians that aren’t fit to lead. If we aren’t willing have long and serious deliberations about something, how can we be willing to send people to die for it?

One last quick thing, be wary of what you read from corporate media. Try to research ‘up the chain’ of sources to get as close to the truth as your can. In this case, watch the interview.

NZ Herald’s deceptive Headline

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Resources

A Wider War: Hezbollah

Eomar — Fri, 02 Feb 2024 12:51:17 GMT

Israeli leaders are currently posturing for and threatening a wider war by invading Lebanon. I have heard several people state that Hezbollah ‘could flatten’ Tel Aviv. I have heard it enough that I wanted to take a look at the potential damage that Hezbollah could inflict upon israel. I researched the weaponry available to Hezbollah & used it to create a relatively simple simulation which is described below. I use ‘rocket’ and ‘missile’ interchangeably here despite there being differences between the two.

The Iron Dome

The Iron Dome Has had an intercept rate as high as 90% in 2021 and gone down to as low as 57% in 2022 & 37% in 2023[1]. It is important to note that MANY of these aren’t failures, simply the system let them by as they were ‘unlikely to cause damage’. There are other systems involved in israeli missile defense but the figure above seems to include these integrated systems. In terms of effectiveness there are two things that come to mind. First, there is a difference between a ‘homemade’ rocket used by Hamas and professionally made ones used by forces like Hezbollah and state actors. Second, when looking at the history of rocket attacks, most are less than 5 rockets launched in a day. PEAK intensity rocket attacks are less than 500 a day on average.

Subscribe now

Hezbollah

Many of us have heard of Israel ‘evacuating Northern Israel’ In reality they evacuated only a small portion of those who live in the North. The evacuated towns all lie within about 1.25 miles (2km) of the border with Lebanon [2]. There are also repeated calls for Hezbollah to remain north of the Litani river (roughly 20 miles from the southernmost areas of Lebanon). The goal there seems to be to keep israelis out of the range of Hezbollah’s SHORT range rockets. It is possible that sticking to ‘short range’ rockets is a particular level of escalation whereas using longer range would be a different level of escalation. Below is an image of 3 circles with the center point in southern Lebanon. The radius corresponds to the range of short, medium and long range weaponry. There are multiple types of rockets/missiles in each range category so the numbers used in the visualization & the simulation below are ‘within the range’ of each class.

Weapon armament

The below armament information is from the Jerusalem Post[3] additional details including warhead size from CSIS [4].

40,000 short range ~10 mile range
- 50-120 kg warhead (90 is used in the simulation)
80,000 medium range ~45 mile range
- 45-90kg warhead (90 is used in the simulation)
40,000 long range ~180 mile range
- 500kg warhead
reference
- as a point of reference the Qassem Rockets that Hamas fires have a 5-10kg warhead[5]

The chart below shows the damage caused by warheads of various sizes[6]. I would say much of what we see in Gaza is level 1 & 2 damage. The simulation uses level 4 damage.

Notable areas/locations

These were pulled by googling ‘military base’, ‘air base’ , ‘naval base’. The area was calculated using google maps ‘measure' feature. For airbases, area used was the runway areas.

Simulating Destruction

This is not a ‘war game’ I don’t have various scenarios playing out or ‘role players’ deciding where to move troops, what actions to take etc. This is a simulation, it is based just on math as described below.

In basic terms. To start, I take the area of a ‘target’, say 1 square mile. I divide this by the blast radius of the rocket (for simple math’s sake say it is .01). So our ‘dart board’ will have 100 ‘spaces’. I then simulate ‘darts’ (rockets/missiles) landing randomly on the board (while accounting for 80% to be intercepted). I consider the location ‘destroyed’ when all of the spaces on the dart board are filled. I ran the simulation 100 times for each ‘target’ and recorded the average number of rockets/missiles required to ‘destroy’ the target.

Flaws of this simulation include (but are not limited to!):

it doesn’t account for the fire rate of Hezbollah, nor does it count for their degradation by Israeli response (i don’t think they can fire 30,000 rockets at the same time but i don’t know what the number is)
It assumes ALL fired rockets land within the target area, for larger targets, this is probably fine, but smaller airbases is probably less accurate
- accuracy of these weapons is measured in Circular Error Probability (CEP)
  - The Fateh-110 which i classify as ‘long range’ have a CEP of 1640ft [7], meaning most of them will land within 1640ft of their intended target
    - The guided versions have a CEP of ~100 ft [8]
    - Other rockets are generally expected to fall between 1% & 5% of their range (so with a 1% CEP and a 100km range, the CEP would be 1KM [9]
If widespread damage is inflicted, Israeli intercept rate will likely decrease, that is not accounted for here
The ‘dart board’ method of this simulation is overly simplistic, I am not very familiar with geo-data but will look at that as a method of improving future iterations.

Again, want to highlight that this is very simplified, but its still an interesting simulation to assess the viability of frequently made claims. I might iterate on this as I figure things out to improve and update it.

Tel Aviv

Based on the simulation, launching ~33,000 long range missiles would effectively destroy Tel Aviv AND the surrounding cities (Petah Tikva, Ramat HaSharon, Herzliya, Ramat Gan, Holon, Bat Yam). Strategically, I don’t think this would be done due to the high cost, but in theory it is possible as many have claimed. To any who would argue this is a valid target/option, I’d suggest you read ‘Guarding Your Humanity’.

Airbases

As for probable targets, I think airbases would probably be high on the list. If an airbase were bombed thoroughly, I am not sure how long it would stay down. In an instance where we bombed a Syrian Airport, jets were reportedly taking off hours later [8]. According to a Syrian pilot who defected to Jordan “if only the tarmac was destroyed it can be fixed within hours, but if the communications system and the control tower were heavily damaged it will take weeks if not months” [10].

Military Bases

I know VERY little about the specifics of these bases, they are what showed up when you google ‘Israeli military bases’. There were around 12 in the Tel-Aviv area so I just did a square mile for each. The ports are also of obvious strategic value. Interesting to note the SIGNIFICANT amount of medium range rockets required to ‘destroy’ the port in Haifa, this is because I used a 90kg warhead for medium range rocket damage estimation vs the 500kg warhead for the long range munitions.

Summary

Based on this simulation (please refer again to the ‘flaws’ above), Hezbollah has enough weaponry to cause SIGNIFICANT damage within Israel. Despite the large target list and high munition cost (seen below), Hezbollah would still have munitions remaining (~14,000 long range missiles, ~31,400 medium range, 37,700 short range).

So why would Israel threaten a wider war? I think their own analysis shows that Hezbollah could cause significant damage. They want to ‘strike first’ to degrade Hezbollah’s capability and (in their minds) mitigate damage to israel. Additionally, forcing a wider war may be seen as a way to encourage direct involvement by the United States. A third reason is of pure political nature, Netanyahu faces the risk of significant consequences for his many failures when the ‘war’ is over. As pressure mounts against the ongoing genocide in Gaza, he may see Hezbollah as a means to continue the war and thus his career.

Conclusion

I’ll close this by again saying this simulation is very simple, it is not complex enough to cover all or even many of the variables. This is a high level assessment of the claims of Hezbollah’s destructive capabilities. In regards to those claims, I would say they are plausible, Hezbollah’s armament is significant. The presence of large 500kg warheads is the ‘game changer’ between the small rockets we usually see fired into israel and the larger ones Hezbollah has access to. This is highlighted when you look at the number of medium range ~90kg rockets needed to destroy the Haifa Port area vs the port of Ashdod which is only in range of the 500kg rockets (remember, Hamas has ~5kg rockets). Assuming even half the level of damage estimated here were possible, a war between Hezbollah & Israel poses a risk for significant damage to Israel. This risk to Israel comes with inherent risk to Americans as our “leaders” may feel inclined to ‘intervene’ putting American lives on the line once again for a foreign nation. A ceasefire in Gaza & a two-state solution is the best way to avoid this scenario & in the best interest of all parties.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Resources

Simulation was done in python using standard libraries

America's Waning Power

Eomar — Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:40:32 GMT

The dollar is weakening, its grip as a reserve currency eroding. The backing of the dollar, the ‘mighty’ US military is showing signs of weakness. Our foreign policy decisions have further isolated America yet there is little sign they will change. The various pieces below make up what I see as the foundation of American power (Money, Manufacturing, Weapons, People and Mission). If in isolation, one of these had issues the threat might be less, with all showing weakness they compound and drastically reduce our global influence and capabilities.

Money

“Government having access to a printing press [for money] allows it to continue fighting until it completely destroys the value of its currency and not just until it runs out of money” — Saifedean Ammous, The Bitcoin Standard

Inflation

On December 23, 1913, America’s worst President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act starting the decline of American monetary power. In short this gave the Fed the ability to print money. The damaging effects can be immediately seen in the below ‘purchasing power’ chart below from the Federal Reserve Economic Data below[1]. Purchasing power is about 3% of what it was before the Federal Reserve Act. When looking at the price of an ounce of gold, in 1913 it cost $18.92, today it is $2051.77[2].

“Inflation is by design”, sure it is to a degree. This doesn’t mean it robs the middle class any less but it has become abundantly clear that, people in power don’t care and that the people not in power understand too little of it to care. What IS of importance, or at least should be, to the people in power is the US dollar status as the reserve currency.

Reserve Currency

The US has been the ‘reserve currency’ of the world since the Bretton-Woods Agreement. In short, the US held gold and “maintained” a conversion rate of $35 per ounce of gold. Foreign currencies would peg their currency to the dollar. This farce continued until 1971 when Nixon officially ended the convertibility of the dollar to gold. Shortly thereafter the US came to an agreement with Saudi Arabia creating the Petro-Dollar. The Saudis would only trade their oil for dollars. In 1971 a barrel of oil was $3.17, today its trading at $78[3]. The Saudis have done seemingly well, despite our inflationary policies, the US has been THE World’s Superpower so that i suppose has kept the Saudis amicable to this arrangement. But will this last?

If we think of a foreign reserve as a ‘rainy day fund’ for nations then the stability and usability of that rainy day fund, no matter the circumstances is VITAL to its value. In February of 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine the United States led sanctions against russia which froze about $300 billion worth of reserves[4]. The US also led the effort to ban Russia from SWIFT, essentially a payment and communications mechanism for banks[5].

There were 2 messages in our response to Russia’s invasion. First was, if you ‘get out of line’ then your reserves will be worthless. The second unintended message was that we do not have as much control and power as we had assumed. European countries still rely on Russian gas and a report from June 2023 showed that many countries are circumventing export bans amounting to $8.5 billion [6]. The other non-monetary consequences will be discussed below.

US National Debt

The United States Federal debt is completely out of control. WE have more that $34 TRILLION in debt. It was 391 billion in 1971.

Interest on our debt was the 4th largest item in the federal expenditures behind Social Security, Medicare and the military [7]. It will soon surpass even our military spending. Some will argue that this level of debt is still ‘manageable’ that it is ‘ok’. We have to assess not just the ability to continue these massive payments but also the willingness of the world to take on our debt-risk. The risk is not only ‘failure to pay’ but the methods of how we may decide to pay, one option, one used historically by indebted nations, is to print money, to increase inflation and devalue the currency in order to ‘lesson’ the burden of debt. That risk does not bode well for the dollar as a reserve currency.

Manufacturing

“Powerful enemies must be out-fought and out-produced… It is not enough to turn out just a few more planes, a few more tanks, a few more guns, a few more ships than can be turned out by our enemies… We must out-produce them overwhelmingly, so that there can be no question of our ability to provide a crushing superiority of equipment in any theatre of the world war” — FDR

The industrial response to Pearl Harbor was nothing short of amazing. The entire nation became a war manufacturing powerhouse. During the war the US built 2/3 of the Allied military equipment 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery pieces, 86,000 tanks, 2 million trucks and 17 Aircraft carriers (compared to Japans 6) [8].

We can see in the below World Bank Data[9] that the US was surpassed by China in 2008 as the world’s leading manufacturer, China now accounts for ~2x as much as the US. The other countries listed are relatively small but where US manufacturing has remained flat, all but South Africa have grown in size. China & Saudi Arabia led the group in manufacturing growth.

The first, most visible cracks in our manufacturing arose (at least to me) when COVID hit. Suddenly Americans became painfully aware of how little we produce in this country. Masks, medicine, medical equipment even toilet paper were hard to come by at times. Supply chains for 75% of US companies were impacted by COVID[10]. US share of chip manufacturing had declined from 37% in 1990 to just 12% in 2020[4]. However, its share of the most advanced chip manufacturing (<10nm) is currently 0% according to McKinsey [11].

Defense Manufacturing

“The U.S. defense industrial base is not adequately prepared for the international security environment that now exists.” - Seth Jones, Center for strategic & International Studies

The war in Ukraine exposed additional flaws in our manufacturing, these tied directly to defense. We can see below that it will takes several YEARS for us to rebuild our stockpiles[12]. This reflected earlier difficulties that were experienced during the battle of Mosul: “In Mosul the coalition’s high and frequent use of precision-guided munitions severely and dangerously reduced the United States’ strategic stockpile.” [13]. Another CSIS report, states that in war games related to an invasion of Taiwan, the US runs out of munitions in LESS THAN A WEEK[14]. A bit of a preview for the next segment, the US can ‘boost production’ to up to 33 armored vehicles a month, 45% of the staff is working on tanks[15], maybe 15 tanks a month? 180 a year. We have gone from ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’, to ‘scream maniacally while swinging a twig’.

Weaponry

American military strength is often thought of in three primary ‘metrics’ tanks, carriers and the sheer volume of money. We have advanced tanks and by a large margin, the most capable aircraft carrier. 30 years ago this combination seemed unstoppable. Today both platforms have vulnerabilities that negatively impact their combat effectiveness and thus their ability to act as a deterrence. The final metric, money, is more a testament to our waste than it is to our strength.

Tanks

“We have sufficient evidence to conclude that this capability [tanks], despite its long and honorable history in the wars of the past, is operationally unsuitable for our highest-priority challenges in the future,” — USMC report on divesting from tanks

Tanks first arrived in battle during WW1 and have had an important role in war since then. They are seen as a foundational part of a nation’s military and a ‘symbol of national power’ [16]. When thinking of 'post WW2’ national militaries, I remember thinking of the sheer number of tanks available to the soviet union as a symbol of its military capabilities. When we invaded Iraq I recall hearing of the armored battles that kicked off the war. While this Army university article cites the ‘continued relevance’ of the tank it uses examples of war pre-2005, the latest being the battle of Fallujah. Much of the article cites the ‘deterrence’ offered by tanks and the aforementioned symbol of power. The USMC report cited above stated that forces which could continue to operate in the weapons engagement zone (WEZ) were more ‘operationally relevant’ than forces that would have to maneuver out to survive[17].

Make no mistake that tanks ARE still formidable weapons just not AS formidable and they cannot win wars alone. The article above points out that tanks are to be used as COMBINED ARMS weapons, meaning in addition to infantry, not as stand alone weapons. While armor’s stand alone vulnerability has been known in the past, I believe it has been amplified by modern technology and fighting environments. The Marine Corps Times cited that the Libyan national army gains an advantage via Chinese made drones that have a 2,000km range and precision missiles[18]. It also cited Turkish military operations video in which armor was taken out from range using drones, artillery, and aircraft. In Ukraine, Russia had reportedly lost about 40% of its entire tank fleet a year into the war[19]. The Ukrainians had significant backing from NATO but the troops on the ground were still likely largely untrained due to the scale of the war losses. Despite this, there are many videos of drone-dropped munitions taking out tanks. In Gaza we see video after video of tanks and other armored vehicles (operating without infantry mostly) being damaged or destroyed in a variety of ways, from drone dropped munitions, multi-stage ambushes or RPG-shoot and scoots. This not only highlights the need for combined arms but also the need for tanks to ‘maneuver out to survive’. I would argue that the field of operations for tanks has narrowed considerably and thus the ‘strength’ projected, both in image and in reality, has been severely limited.

Carriers

Debate has begun, at least within the past 15 years if the carrier is still a viable platform. This comes as the $13 billion Ford Class carriers enter service. They are planned to have a ‘50 year’ service life. Despite this huge investment, the viability of the platform is in question. Commander Angus Ross (Royal Navy- Ret) believes that “Instead of being the centerpiece, it will become an important but more narrowly focused role player”[20]. Others are seem less optimistic.

In ‘At what cost a Carrier’ by Capt Henry J. Hendrix, articulates the many issues of a carrier focused Navy. In short, they are expensive and increasingly vulnerable, much like the tank mentioned above. The flaws were highlighted upon the development of Chinese DF-21 missile which has ~1000 mile range vs the 690 mile range of an F-35. One argument in support of carriers cited the ‘refueling’ of fighters to ‘double’ their range[21]. Unfortunately, the Chinese J-20 has a combat range of 1000-1200 miles, meaning any refueling efforts would be taking place within strike distance[22].

That is worst case scenario, war with China. Most missions (which we will dive into below) are in the middle east striking targets on land with little to no air defenses. How does it fair there? Well, expensive. In addition to the upfront costs, it costs an estimated “$6.5 million per day to operate a strike group”[23]. In terms of ‘show of force’ Hendrix details the reduced costs that associated with other platforms filling the role. Flying planes and training pilots is also incredibly expensive. Based on figures in the years leading up to 2013 when the article was written, it “works out to $7.5 million per bomb” dropped vs ~$2 million of a tomahawk missile.

Hendrix highlights that the real problem with carriers is survivability. I touched on the ‘peer’ threat above but it should also be noted this was written in 2013 and still cited “swarming small craft” as a risk. I don’t know if that was intended to mean drone strikes but I think the author would probably agree. Ukraine highlighted the effectiveness of drones against tanks AND drones against ships. We can watch a video of their use here which details the use of ‘sea baby’ to partially sink a Russian ship. The reported range is over 500 miles. They cost a mere $250,000 to produce[24]. Their are also reportedly submersible versions in production now as well[25] .

What are carriers best at then? It seems creating jobs may be their ‘primary function’. Though only built in one Virginia shipyard, the “supply chain consists 2,450 companies in 48 states and 364 congressional districts, employing 13,100 people along the way. And the Newport News shipyard alone employs 25,000 more.”[26]

People

Recruitment

Surprising no one, a 2022 US army study found that “young people don’t want to die or get injured, deal with the stress of the army or put their lives on hold”[27]. Across the military the US missed its recruiting goals by 41,000. The DOD article cites among other things, a ‘low trust in institutions’, ‘more [career] options’, ‘fewer family members who served’ and a ‘smaller eligible population’ among other things [28]. What does that mean? In 2020 it was found that only 23% of those 17-24 were even eligible. 44% had more than one disqualifying reason, 11% were only overweight, 8% due to drug use, 7% due to medical/physical only and 4% due to mental health issues[29]. I mentioned above the ‘deterrence’ capabilities of our weapons above, perhaps as a measure of global ‘belief’ in that system, Americans have the lowest confidence in the military in 26 years[30].

Some may look to the draft as a solution in the future but I cannot emphasize enough the different levels of discipline and skill I have seen between an all volunteer force of professional US military and conscripts in Russia, Ukraine and to my surprise Israel (yes even i believed the ‘hype’). The fact that the IDF STILL operates tanks without infantry should be all the evidence you need. Conscripts fight like conscripts and the trade off for America will be a huge net negative.

Politicians

It is hard to have have confidence in our politicians when they seem most focused on re-election and looting the American tax payer. Last year 90 year old Dianne Feinstein died in office, does anyone actually believe she was serving the people in the years leading up to her death? Roughly half of congress (house & senate) are over the age of 60, 20% are over the age of 70 [31]. Are these the people with the best interest of Americans at heart? It seems highly unlikely, some have had apparently “not” strokes on live TV. Many in congress have wealth far beyond the typical American with the median wealth over $1million. Several are worth over $100 million [32]. The top 20 ‘net worth gainers’ in 2014 had an average increase of 422% per year[33]. Can an 80 year old, $100 millionaire understand what is best for America? I doubt it.

Partisanship

62% of republicans and 54% of Democrats have ‘very unfavorable’ views of members of the other party[34]. 27% of Americans have unfavorable views of both parties and nearly half of all Americans age 18-49 ‘often wish’ there were more political parties[34]. I think most (at least 18-49 year olds) would agree that partisanship helps ensure we get worse political candidates than we need. The declining quality of politicians decreases the likelihood that America will adapt to changing geopolitical landscapes.

Mission

“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”— Brigadier General Smedley Butler, USMC, War is a Racket

What are we fighting for? Freedom? No that lie got us into one war. Our rights? We sacrificed more rights following 9/11 than perhaps any other period in our history. Justice? No, we often support dictators, in fact today we are bombing Yemen for their military opposition to Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians. Oil? Maybe, but we hit records in our production and lead the world today. The end of the day it is the racket that leads us to war, time and time again. Sometimes with some logical backing, though often, too often, lies and deceit led us to war. Scott Horton lists out the examples through ~2015[35].

Unwinnable Wars

I often describe our military as one highly capable of winning battles but completely inept at winning wars. Part of it ties back to the mission.

We invaded Afghanistan following 9/11 with intent of destroying Al-Qaida and killing Osama Bin Laden. We spent $2.3 trillion on this war and over 243,000 people were killed [36]. The Taliban now has an air force , armored vehicles and tons of munitions[37].

We spent roughly $3 trillion on our invasion of Iraq[38], this includes the follow on create/fund & destroy loop with ISIS, which eventually, supposedly ended 2 years after a bill was introduced.[39]. In total, 550,000 to 580,000 people were killed (so far). Biden requested $397 million this year to continue this fight [40].

In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. The US has sent over $75 billion in aid to Ukraine (the EU sent another $84 billion)[41]. I showed above the impact it has had on our stockpiles. Our government set out to ‘bleed’ Russia with Western arms and Ukrainian lives. The total deaths are not yet known though it is estimated over 500,000 [42]. The outcome however seems bleak. Despite our efforts the ‘land bridge’ to Crimea is under Russian Control.

BBC

Following a Hamas attack in October of last year (resulting from decades of oppression), Israel began a brutal genocidal campaign [43]. America has been shifting our focus off of Ukraine now to support this effort, depleting our resources even further. While the world supported Ukraine’s defense against Russia, the world is against Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed thus far, last I calculated on day 81, 28% were men, 30% women and 42% children[44]. If we use the battle of Mosul as a model for the battle happening alongside Israel’s genocide, then we see that it is highly unlikely that Israel can actually achieve its military goals. In Mosul there was a ratio between 8 and 33 coalition fighters to 1 ‘enemy fighter’. Hamas’ 40,000 fighters would indicate a required force between 320,000 and 1.3 million. Far beyond the capabilities of Israel and not factoring in other regional actors.

As a final emphasis on our depravity, Yemen began attacking ships headed for israel. A Yemeni military spokesman stated "If Gaza does not receive the food and medicine it needs, all ships in the Red Sea bound for Israeli ports, regardless of their nationality, will become a target for our armed forces,"[45]. As the attacks intensified the US and then the UK made strikes in Yemen, the attacks continued and so have the ‘response’ strikes[46]. Millions took to the streets following US strikes showing it unlikely that ‘bombing for regime change’ will work.

Hegemon no more

Reserve Money Alternatives

BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China & South Africa) added 5 countries , including Egypt, Iran, UAE and Saudi Arabia this year. Many fear that this growing alliance, which accounts for 45% of the world’s population, 33% of global DGP and 40% of the world’s oil production will be able to challenge the US & the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency[47]. Saudi Arabia, the foundation of the Petro-dollar, has expressed interest in trading in other currencies. It should also be noted that China is the main recipient of Saudi oil exports[48]. Saudi US dollar reserves are at the lowest point in years, down 41% since 2020[49] accounting for roughly a quarter of their foreign reserves.

tradingeconomics.com

The American Institute for Economic Research states that BRICS currencies still lose value faster than the dollar when based on gold purchasing power (visualized in graphic below)[50]. However, if we add Bitcoin into the comparison, there is a clear alternative. Many may scoff at this idea but the United States owns ~200,000 Bitcoin that it confiscated[51]. China also confiscated ~195,000 Bitcoin though it is unclear if it has been sold[52]. Saudi Arabia’s Saudi Aramco has agreed in December 2023 to work with Japanese company SBI Holdings “in the field of digital assets”[53].

AIER

Power Projection

Russia’s resilience against the combined support of the West embarrassed America and its purported strength and influence. Instead of isolating Russia we seem to have pushed our cluster of ‘adversaries’ closer together. We went from signaling ‘you can’t do what you want’ to ‘we can’t really stop you’. A frightening signal for Taiwan.

To emphasize this, as multiple strike groups sat in surrounding waters, one of the poorest countries in the world began attacking israeli shipping contrary to our stated goals. If they can stare down multiple strike groups and continue to conduct operations that disrupt shipping, what message does that send to the world? The US touted the formation of a coalition to combat the Houthis in Yemen though some members sent literally 2 officers to Bahrain[54]. In addition to the costs stated above, US forces are firing $2 million missiles at $2,000 Houthi Drones[55]. Our ensuing strikes have done nothing as of today to open up Red Sea shipping.

What is our mission?

We operate as if ‘when we destroy your airport, you’ll surrender and we will win’. That is not the nature of modern conflicts. At least not the ones we are currently involved in. Our definition of ‘projection’ is apparently the ability to bomb an area, yet these bombs fail to achieve our goals time and time again. When used carelessly, like we are doing in Yemen and Palestine, they solidify the resistance against us. The concept of blowback is completely ignored by America’s “leaders” and our populace appears offended that people object to being constantly bombed[56]. Our mission statement is to enforce American will and project American Power, yet our primary tool is bombings. If bombings are undermining US reputation overseas, then the execution of our mission is directly counter to America’s best interests. Rather than pull nations and peoples into the American sphere of influence by being a ‘shining city upon the hill’ we are bombing them into opposition. If we continue on this path, if or when we do face a peer adversary like China we would likely do so alone.

Recruiting Social media influencers

In an age where many want to be social media influencers, the brutality of war is being live streamed. We see men, women, children blown apart by our bombs. We see the failure and futility of our foreign policy. While America might not sympathize with ‘terrorists’, Americans are getting a livestreamed view of what was previously ‘hand waved’ as “collateral damage”. It is hard to ignore the failure of our foreign policy when its brutality is on full display. If the US wants to fix its recruitment problem it needs to fix its mission and how it carries it out. Younger generations also see the flaws of our “two party” system. They see the perils of partisanship and they likely see the declining quality of our ‘leaders’. If America wants to rebuild institutional trust something there must change as well.

Influence & Reputation

More adults in Taiwan see American power & influence as a major threat than they do North Korea’s Nuclear weapons[57]. While most of the countries surveyed (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong) saw China as a greater threat, the US was not far behind. US reputation across the middle east is worsening with a mere 7% saying we have a ‘positive role’ in the Gaza “war”[58]. The US middle east policy is wrought with errors and has exemplified the growing tensions between US and key ally Saudi Arabia [59]. We have, multiple times, voted alone to block resolutions calling for a ceasefire[60]. South Africa brought genocide charges against israel to the ICJ and Biden has been sued for ‘failing to stop a genocide’ by rights groups[61]. The damage to our reputation cannot be overstated.

Conclusion

Our world leading military budget and reserve currency status is not giving us the same level of influence we have grown accustomed to. Despite our best efforts in Ukraine, Russia was not defeated, at best it is a ‘stalemate’ with Russia holding its desired land-bridge to the Crimea. We also learned that modern tactics and technology have severely impacted the staples of US power, the tank and the carrier. This was further exemplified in Gaza where American funded IDF forces face heavy losses in their tank-centric military. Our power and influence was made a mockery when Yemen, despite our multi-million dollar a day naval presence, shut down Red Sea shipping, in part by using $2,000 drones.

The US is on a path that will lead to the destruction of its currency, to delay that it must reign in military spending, that means fewer carriers, fewer tanks and fewer direct interests and involvements. I don’t believe that this is a ramp we are capable of getting off of, the incentives for foreign nations to abandon the dollar are too high. Our actions in the coming years will determine how quickly it happens.

America needs to not only rethink 'what’ power projection should look like, it needs to redefine its mission completely. The bomb and the gun can not be the primary means of US power projection. It is a short sighted strategy that has been used for far too long.

Note: Shortly after publishing Netanyahu publicly stated his opposition to a Palestinian State. A direct contradiction to (stated) US policy. This amplifies the fact that our influence, even over a nation we sacrifice so much for, is nearly non-existent.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Resources

Encouraged Reading: The Bitcoin Standard

Diligent News: Geopolitics

The New Iran War

Wartime Preparedness

The USA

Munitions

Carriers

The War so Far

War Crimes

Water War

Food war

Stability

Cost

Economic Costs

Strategic Costs

Real Costs

Planning to Fail

Related Articles

Resources

A New War: Venezuela

Attacks on Venezuela

Legality & Ramifications

Congress

Population & Economy

Geography & Terrain

Size

Mountains

Forests & Swamps

Ports

Military of Venezuela

Airforce

Air Defense

Missiles

Drones

The Politics of Regime Change

Conclusion

Related Articles

Resources

Israe-lies War

Initial Israeli Attack

Trump’s Role

Iran’s Response

Ongoing exchanges

Trumps Threats

The end of MAGA

Recycled Lies

International Response

Turkey

Pakistan

Russia

China

Continuing Genocide

Conclusion

Related Articles

Resources

The Trump Doctrine

The End of Global Hegemony

Diplomatic & Strategic Failures

Economic Warfare

Supply Chain

Capabilities & Vulnerabilities

Withdrawal

Palestine & the Middle East

Russia, Europe & NATO

Asia

Military Reduction

USAID

Attack in a Different Direction

South America

Greenland & Canada

The Israel Exception

Conclusion

Related Articles

Diligent Gear

Resources

Cease...fire

Hezbollah-zionist Ceasefire

Rumors of a Gaza-Ceasefire

Conclusion

Related Articles

Resources