This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A view of the United States Embassy compound in Baghdad, Iraq, where a missile attack was reported to have caused damage on March 14, 2026. [Murtadha Al-Sudani – Anadolu Agency]
The US Embassy in Iraq’s capital Baghdad came under a rocket attack early Saturday, local media reported, citing a security source, Anadolu reports.
The source told Shafaq News Agency that the attack resulted in the destruction of the embassy’s C-RAM air defense system “completely,” which is used to intercept incoming rockets and projectiles.
The news agency quoted another unnamed security source as saying that “a satellite communications system was destroyed as a result of the attack that targeted the US Embassy compound in Baghdad.”
The source explained that the damaged system was designated “to secure and exchange data via satellites for diplomatic staff and employees inside the compound.”
The source added that the US C-RAM air defense system was unable to intercept an “unidentified drone” that carried out the attack, despite its proximity to the targeted location, which led to the satellite communications system being directly hit.
No immediate reports were issued regarding casualties, and US officials have not yet commented on the incident.
Since Israel and the US launched joint attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, killing some 1,200 people, including then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, hostilities have escalated.
Iran has retaliated with drone and missile strikes targeting Israel, Jordan, Iraq, and Gulf countries hosting US military assets.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Climate science denier Donald Trump says that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateeringDonald Trump explains why he established his Bored of PeaceDonald Trump warns against following the https://onaquietday.org blog, says that it’s easy atm, she only needs to report war crimes supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion.
Rally against the war on Iran in Los Angeles. Photo: PSL LA
As the US-Israeli war on Iran reaches its third week, polls, protests, and congressional pushback suggest opposition in the United States is deepening to historic levels.
Over 1,400 people have been killed and 18,000 injured in Iran since the start of the US-Israeli war against the country on February 28. Major civilian casualties have been reported, including 160 school girls killed in an attack on their elementary school. As the conflict reaches its third week, the vast majority of people in the US are flatly rejecting another war launched in their name.
It may also be one of the most expensive wars in modern history. In the first six days, US taxpayers had already spent an estimated 11.3 billion USD. This number doesn’t factor in major costs like troop deployments, aircraft operations and maintenance, equipment losses, long-term care for wounded troops, rebuilding munitions stockpiles, and more. The total cost is much higher. The Pentagon reportedly burned through 5.6 billion USD worth of munitions in just the first 48 hours.
Gas prices in the North American country have also soared about 60 cents a gallon so far, after the Islamic Republic shut down the world’s most critical maritime energy chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz. About 20-30% of the world’s oil supply has been jammed in the region, lowering its availability and raising its price. A barrel of oil sold for 60 USD before Washington launched the war on Iran. Today the price has reached 100 USD per barrel. A spokesperson for Iran’s military command, Ebrahim Zolfaqari, warned this week: “Get ready for oil to be $200 a barrel, because the oil price depends on regional security, which you have destabilized.”
As the economic and humanitarian effects accelerate, polls, protests, strikes, and even pushback in the US Congress are reflecting a population that is increasingly opposed to funding this war.
Trump officials: “Death and destruction from the sky”
Despite the opposition across the country, the White House has resolved to continue the war “until the mission is complete”. The question circulating within the US government, however, remains: what exactly is the mission?
US officials have offered a range of different answers, including: preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, weakening the Iranian government, and even regime change.
In a Pentagon update on March 4, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described the strategy this way: “Every minute of every day until we decide it’s over … Death and destruction from the sky all day long.”
“No one is putting us in danger. We’re putting the other guys in danger. The only people who need to be worried right now are Iranians who think they are going to live,” he said, a few days later in a 60 Minutes interview.
On Fox News on March 8, Senator Lindsey Graham said: “We’re gonna blow the hell out of these people. This regime is in a death row now. It is gonna be on its knees. It’s going to fall.”
While several officials have commented about defeating the regime in Iran, in an early press conference about the war, Hegseth said that this was not a “regime-change war” – the mission was to “destroy Iran’s missiles, navy and deny Tehran nuclear weapons”.
When asked why Washington is waging war on Iran, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “Well look, Iran chants ‘death to America,’ so you tell me if that’s a threat”.
From declarations of total destruction to casual boasts about civilian casualties, the administration’s rhetoric has been as extreme as it is inconsistent.
Despite the brazenness of Trump officials, there are signs that confidence may be shakier behind closed doors. The Guardian recently reported that Iranian officials have rejected multiple ceasefire requests. Instead, Iranian leaders “believe there can be no end to the conflict until it believes Trump has been shown the economic, political and military cost is so high that it is not worth repeating.”
The contrast between public bravado and private negotiation highlights the administration’s lack of a clear strategy.
Congressional pushback: No endgame, no strategy
With objectives unclear and costs reaching the tens of billions, opposition within Congress surfaced quickly. Senate Democrats and lawmakers expressed genuine frustration with the administration’s war justifications and oversight in general.
Key lawmakers emerged from a series of classified briefings earlier this week visibly alarmed and dismayed at what they had just been told about the strategy and goals of the conflict.
Senator Chris Murphy was among the most outspoken. He described the administration’s war plans as “totally incoherent” and lacking any clear endgame. He claimed that neither destroying Iran’s nuclear program nor regime change were listed as goals, raising serious questions about what possible objectives this military aggression was meant to achieve. The senator also noted that congressional authorization for the war would almost certainly fail because “the American people would demand their members of Congress vote no”.
The classified briefings left Senator Richard Blumenthal “dissatisfied and angry”. He said it was one of the most frustrating security briefings of his career, highlighting that there appears to be no endgame. “We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here”, a prospect the senator says Congress and the public deserve much clearer explanations for.
A bloc of Senate Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren, and Chris Van Hollen, has pressed for more public accountability, demanding not just better strategic information but accountability for strikes that have caused severe harm, such as the confirmed US strike on a girls elementary school in Minab, Iran.
Meanwhile, congressional efforts to pass war-powers resolutions to force the president to seek formal authorization have so far failed.
The people of the US, on the other hand, are asserting that there is no justification for the war at all. Instead of seeking an explanation or even congressional authorization, a new anti-war movement is demanding an immediate end to the aggression. People have continued to mobilize since the first bombs fell on Tehran.
Anti-war movement builds in the streets
In the days immediately after the initial US-Israeli airstrikes on Iran, emergency protests broke out across the country. Following this first wave of demonstrations, actions have continued and are gaining momentum as the war escalates.
A coalition of organizations, including ANSWER, The Peoples Forum NYC, the Palestinian Youth Movement, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, held a national day of action on March 7 against the war on Iran. Protests and rallies were seen in cities both large and small chanting “Stop bombing Iran now!” and “Money for jobs and education!”
Anti-war veterans were particularly outspoken at these actions, especially after veteran and anti-war activist Brian McGinnis was assaulted by Capital police in Washington DC for protesting the war on Iran. Several men broke his arm in the assault as he yelled “No one wants to fight for Israel!” during a US Senate Subcommittee meeting.
“To all those who are not yet deployed: Now is the time to resist!”
The very next day, International Women’s Day, various cities held yet another wave of protests against the war on Iran. The demonstrations highlighted how women and children are increasingly the direct victims of wars and among the first to suffer from displacement and economic devastation. Iranian-American women in particular spoke out at many of these rallies, highlighting the cost to US taxpayers.
“This war is costing us about one billion dollars a day. That is insane,” said Hanieyh, a protestor in the Bay Area.
Protestors have vowed to continue mobilizing on US streets until the human and economic cost of the war abroad becomes impossible to ignore.
Civilian casualties, black rain, and disaster: the toll of a war without limits
War crimes and violations of international law have been alleged since the opening days of the war. In one instance, a US submarine torpedoed and sank a defenseless Iranian frigate, “IRIS Dena”, in the Indian Ocean as it was returning from participating as a guest in the multinational naval exercise MILAN, hosted by India. The vast majority of the crew (160 sailors) were killed in the strike. In another horrific attack, US-Israeli airstrikes targeted fuel depots near Tehran, triggering massive oil fires that raged for days. Eyewitnesses reported giant black clouds covering the capital and “oily rain” falling on a city of 10 million civilians. Scientists say burning oil at this scale releases massive amounts of hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, and soot into the atmosphere. When rain forms in such a polluted environment, it falls as toxic and oily “black rain”.
When one of the opening strikes killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, Iran responded in the way it had long warned the United States and the region it would if attacked. The Islamic Republic targeted Israel, US bases across West Asia, and allied military installations in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others. Iran is currently launching its 40th wave of retaliatory strikes under “Operation True Promise 4”, according to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
After Reuters reported 150 US soldiers had been wounded from these attacks, the Pentagon revised its initial report of fewer than a dozen wounded US service members, now acknowledging about 140 injuries.
Western media has claimed 7 US soldiers have been killed so far in Iran’s retaliatory attacks. Although, some critics and analysts question that total, suggesting casualties are likely higher based on the scale of the war. Trump himself famously said about the first dead soldiers, “Sadly, there will likely be more before it ends. That’s the way it is.”
Escalation abroad, opposition at home
As the war enters its third week, the gap between the White House’s policy and public opinion continues to widen. While the Trump administration insists the bombing will continue “until the mission is complete,” it remains unclear what that mission actually is and how many lives, billions of dollars, and devastated cities it will take to achieve it.
For millions of people in the United States, the answer is increasingly simple: there is no justification for the war at all.
Between the staggering financial cost, the mounting civilian casualties (many of them children), and the absence of a coherent strategy, opposition to the war has spread far beyond traditional anti-war circles. Polls show overwhelming public disapproval, members of Congress are openly questioning the administration’s objectives, and a growing movement in the streets is demanding an immediate end to the bombing.
Whether Washington chooses to search for an exit to the war it started remains to be seen. But one fact is clear: the vast majority of people in the US are unwilling to support another endless war fought in their name.
Trump and Netanyahu have a problem of their own making in Iran | Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The US president’s claim that the war is ‘very complete’ was little more than wishful thinking
“I think the war is very complete, pretty much,” was Donald Trump’s assessment of the Israeli-American war in Iran earlier this week, after nearly a fortnight of death and destruction.
“[Iran has] no navy, no communications, they’ve got no air force,” the US president continued. “Their missiles are down to a scatter. Their drones are being blown up all over the place, including their manufacturing of drones.”
Iran thinks otherwise: it struck three merchant ships near the Strait of Hormuz days later.
The US military’s recent actions are also in contradiction with Trump’s boasts of success. Having depleted its stocks of missiles and anti-drone weapons, the Pentagon is making plans to move reserves from South Korea, to the evident concern of the government in Seoul. In a further unexpected twist, the US is even turning to Ukraine to supply it with cheap anti-drone defences made locally and costing a tiny fraction of the commercial systems.
For Israel and the US, which began the war with surprise airstrikes on Iran on 28 February, Tehran’s ability to survive is proving far greater than expected. More than 1,000 Iranians have been killed, including the former supreme leader, but the regime is still able to respond to attacks.
As the war intensifies with no end in sight, two key elements are emerging.
The first is that Binyamin Netanyahu, in particular, has fallen into a trap of his own making.
Israel’s prime minister likely imagined Israel and the US would be able to quickly declare victory after assassinating Iran’s supreme leader, bolstering his approval ratings ahead of this year’s Israeli general election.
But with the supreme leader’s son now appointed as his successor, a victory for Israel can only involve completely destroying Iran’s ability to resurrect a nuclear weapon programme. Anything short of this, and its resurrection will be the first aim of any surviving regime – leaving Israel in an even less secure position than before it attacked Tehran.
This total destruction is proving harder than expected, not least because of Iran’s extensive network of tunnels, which I noted in openDemocracy last week. Footage released by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps last year, which purportedly shows a tunnel full of naval drones, anti-ship missiles, and sea mines, resurfaced this week after the attacks on the merchant ships.
The second issue is more surprising and has emerged only in the past few days.
Having failed to terminate the Iranian regime in the first leadership assassination, Israel and the US are falling back on the Dahiya Doctrine, an Israeli military tactic rooted in wrecking a neighbourhood, a city or even a country to undermine public support for a recalcitrant leadership. In theory, it forces the enemy leadership to give up and thereby lose the war.
The two nations have embarked on an expanded bombing campaign that increasingly targets Iran’s civilian population. As well as the spiralling death toll, thousands of residential properties have been destroyed, displacing more than a million people from their homes.
Civil infrastructure has also been targeted, including banks needed to pay wages. There are numerous reports of hospitals and health centres being hit.
Israel and the US’s use of the Dahiya Doctrine is unsurprising; Israel first used the tactic to attack Hezbollah’s stronghold district of Dahiya in southern Beirut in 2006, and it has since become a valuable tool in its arsenal. Despite Hezbollah’s survival – indeed, 20 years on, Israel is again pummelling Dahiya – Israel used the same approach in four assaults on Hamas in Gaza between 2007 and 2021, and it has been its main policy in the devastating war in Gaza since 2023.
In Iran, expect many more attacks from Israel and the US, killing or maiming many thousands more. Yet a remarkable sting in the tail is emerging that is already changing everything.
Put bluntly, Iran is using Israel’s Dahiya Doctrine against Israel itself.
Iran cannot defeat the combined military power of the US and Israel, but what it can do, and is already doing, is engage in economic warfare on a global scale by targeting the 20% of the world’s oil and gas that originates in the Persian Gulf and passes through the Strait of Hormuz.
Its aim is simple: cause such problems in world energy markets that, in a matter of weeks, there will be huge pressure on Trump and his people to force a pause in the fighting, whatever Netanyahu says.
And the International Energy Agency has already described the situation as one of “dire straits’, warning that “the war in the Middle East is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market”.
It continued: “With crude and oil product flows through the Strait of Hormuz plunging from around 20 mb/d before the war to a trickle currently, limited capacity available to bypass the crucial waterway, and storage filling up, Gulf countries have cut total oil production by at least 10 mb/d. In the absence of a rapid resumption of shipping flows, supply losses are set to increase.”
The implication is that a very difficult time of global energy shortages lies ahead.
So while Trump may say the war is “very complete”, it’s far from it.
A video shared by the White House combines footage from Wii golf with video of US strikes on Iran. (Photo: The White House/X/Screengrab)
By saying the quiet part out loud, Trump is revealing that war is based on the least of who we are, the least mature aspect of human nature.
Boys will be boys. Just ask the president.
At a gathering of Republicans a few days ago, Donald Trump talked nonchalantly about the recent sinking of an apparently unarmed Iranian frigate by the US Navy—in the Indian Ocean, more than 2,000 miles from the Persian Gulf. A total of 104 crew members were killed and 32 more were injured.
The president proceeded to make this more than merely another brutal, pointless act of war. He turned it into a glaring—shocking—revelation of truth… about the American-Israeli war on Iran and, quite possibly about all wars: about war itself. He was upset at first, he told the crowd, that the Navy sank the frigate rather than capturing it. But when he expressed this to the military officials, one of them responded, “It’s more fun to sink them.”
And the crowd laughed. Uh… are we “playing” war or waging it, with that trillion-dollar annual military budget America has? No doubt we’re doing both, but normally the “fun” part of war—the dehumanization of the enemy, the abstraction of people’s deaths (including those of children)—is airbrushed from public discussion by politically correct strategic and political blather. But this is Trump, spouting the quiet part out loud—in the process, causing the global infrastructure of nation-states, borders, and militarism to tremble. Could it be that war is based on the least of who we are, the least mature aspect of human nature?
A “global structure of nonviolence” is emerging—pushing, pushing against the deeply embedded infrastructure of war and us-vs.-them consciousness.
Well, guess what. There are other forces alive in today’s world. Decades of resistance to domination and colonialism, the learnings of movements across the Global South, the freedom that Western hegemony for a few decades inadvertently released on its majority population, and access through social media to some of the reality of the actual horrors perpetrated in our names have together led to a worldwide awakening to fundamental injustices, and a worldwide longing for a livable, connected, survivable future.
She calls this worldwide awakening “Radical Empathy,” a term in widespread use, which means a deeply rooted sense of connection among people, well beyond merely sympathy and shared feelings. We are one planet, one people, and we will survive together or not at all.
“Radical Empathy must be fierce, stubborn, creative, persistent,” she continues. “We must hold on to each other, build community, be willing to take risks and accept consequences. Seek alternatives. Stand in solidarity with all who resist oppression and the violence of power and greed…
“And we artists must nurture artistic bravery, using the power of the arts to tell truth, to build community, to turn our capacity for radical empathy into a force for good.”
In other words, Radical Empathy isn’t simply emotional. You can say it’s spiritual, but it’s also political. It’s a movement: ever changing, ever manifesting in the moment, ever addressing conflict by reaching for connection and understanding. Yes, global nationalism still maintains the power to wage war. And war is everywhere these days. As Jeffrey Sachs noted in a recent interview, “World War III is here…” from Ukraine and Gaza and Iran to Asia to the Western Hemisphere. And the fighting across the world is linked.
But at the same time the world is changing. A “global structure of nonviolence” is emerging—pushing, pushing against the deeply embedded infrastructure of war and us-vs.-them consciousness. Finding understanding with your enemy—connecting with “the other”—can be incredibly difficult, especially in the midst of conflict, but Radical Empathy is making it a reality across the planet.
Laura Hassler’s organization, Musicians Without Borders, exemplifies this movement. The organization was founded in 1999, in Alkamaar, a city in the Netherlands. Laura, who was a choir director and organized music events, had put together a concert for the town’s annual honoring of the dead of World War II.
The bloody war in Kosovo was then raging: Thousands had died; nearly a million refugees were streaming across Europe. Its horror dominated the daily news, and Laura couldn’t ignore it. She couldn’t simply focus on the war dead of half a century ago, not when the hell of war was alive in the present moment, pulling at her soul.
She decided, “We’ll perform music from the people suffering from war now—folk songs from Eastern Europe,” she told me. Her impulse was to reach out, to connect, somehow, with those suffering right now, on the other side of Europe. And something happened the night of the concert. When it ended, there was a moment of profound silence… and then, as the audience stood, applause so thunderous that the rafters shook. It went on for 20 minutes.
One of the musicians, a political refugee from Turkey, said to her afterwards: “This concert was special. We should put it on a train, send it to Kosovo and stop the war!”
And they went to Kosovo. Gradually, Musicians Without Borders became global, working with local people in war-torn regions all over the world—people on both sides of the divide—to create music that transcends the war of the moment. The organization currently has long-term projects in the Balkans, West Asia, Eastern Africa, and Europe.
This is Radical Empathy, or at least one example of it—our complex force of hope even as the world’s leaders continue bleeding away the planet’s resources in order to play war. Radical Empathy transcends war. It’s who we are—when we find ourselves.
Climate science denier Donald Trump says that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateeringDonald Trump explains why he established his Bored of PeaceOrcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.
US marines stand on a beach in Sattahip, Thailand after taking part in the 46th Cobra Gold multinational military exercises co-hosted by the Royal Thai Armed Force and the US Indo-Pacific command on February 26, 2026. (Photo by Adryel Talamantes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“Bringing this war to an end,” said one former US intelligence analyst, “requires recognizing it can still get much, much worse.”
In what has been described as a potential “major escalation” of the Trump administration’s war with Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly approved a request from US Central Command to move more warships and thousands of Marines to the Middle East following Iran’s attacks on vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
Citing three US officials, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that the US was sending “an element of an amphibious ready group and attached Marine expeditionary unit, typically consisting of several warships and 5,000 Marines and sailors.”
According to the Journal, the Japan-based USS Tripoli and its attached Marines are already headed to the Middle East.
While the Journal did not explicitly report that the operation was tied to the volatile situation in the Strait of Hormuz, it noted that “the move comes as Iran’s attacks on the strait have paralyzed traffic through the strategic waterway, disrupting the global economy, driving up gas prices and posing a major military and political challenge for President [Donald] Trump.”
A key indicator of a potential ground operation.
"Hegseth has approved a request from Centcom for an element of an amphibious ready group and attached Marine expeditionary unit, typically consisting of several warships and 5,000 Marines…" https://t.co/nvGm51RELI
In his first address on Thursday, delivered by a news anchor on Iranian state TV, the country’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, said that “the lever of blocking the Strait of Hormuz must definitely be used” to heighten economic pressure on the US.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has declared that “not a liter of oil” shall pass through the strait, and vowed to attack any ship linked to the US and Israel that may attempt to make the journey.
Iran has reportedly attacked at least six commercial ships in the area since Wednesday, including one marked with a Thai flag that still has three crew members missing. US intelligence sources have also accused Iran of laying mines in the Strait, which Iran has neither confirmed nor denied.
The blockage of the strait, through which about one-fifth of global oil shipments pass each year, has sent the global market into chaos. Prices of Brent crude have surged from under $70 less than a month ago to more than $100 per barrel on the global market, and US gas prices have leaped to $3.63 per gallon on average, up from $2.94 a month ago.
Prices have continued to climb even after the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced its largest-ever coordinated release of oil from nations’ strategic reserves on Wednesday to combat what it called “the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”
Shashank Joshi, the defense editor at The Economist and a visiting fellow at the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, said that a deployment of such a large Marine force seems to be “a key indicator of a potential ground operation” in Iran.
Trump said earlier this week that he was “nowhere near” sending troops into Iran even as it ramped up threats to block the strait. But privately, he has reportedly been mulling plans to put “boots on the ground” within Iranian territory to accomplish a number of objectives, though officials have characterized them as limited special-operations missions.
Administration officials have reportedly suggested a commando raid on Iran’s nuclear sites to confiscate or sabotage its supply of uranium, according to Axios. They’ve also considered a plan to occupy Kharg Island, which sits 15 miles off Iran’s coast and handles about 90% of its oil exports, serving as an economic “lifeline” for the battered nation.
But Trump has also said that if Iran blocks the strait, “the US Navy and its partners will escort tankers through the strait, if needed.” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Dan Caine, has said the Pentagon is looking at “a range of options” to do this.
In an analysis published Tuesday by Zeteo, Harrison Mann, a former US Army major and executive officer of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Middle East/Africa Regional Center, suggested that the US may pursue an ambitious plan to “clear Iran’s coastline around the strait” to get tankers moving again.
Mann, who worked under the Biden administration but resigned in protest of its support for the genocide in Gaza, said this plan would require “an indefinite occupation–otherwise missile trucks could just get in position after US forces leave.” Doing this, he added, would require “a full-fledged invasion, possibly beyond even the 10,000 or so rapid-response forces at Trump’s disposal.”
“All of these ground operations risk high casualties while failing to accomplish their missions,” Mann said. “That’s a feature, not a bug. Even if one of these operations met its objectives, troops in peril behind enemy lines demand resupply, evacuation, and revenge, which puts more troops in peril behind enemy lines, and so on.”
Context: A MEU has only ~1200 *ground* troops. You're not invading Iran ("securing the Strait of Hormuz") with that. Adding the 5-10k available airborne troops might be enough to get a proper quagmire started, though. https://t.co/j139Dfb4Zc
The movement of more troops comes as the US public expresses strong disapproval of Trump’s war with Iran. In a Quinnipiac poll published this week, 53% of registered voters said they opposed US military action against Iran, while just 40% approved.
About 74% said they feared that the war would cause oil and gas prices to rise, and 71% feared that the war would last “months” or longer.
Trump’s former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, who remains one of his top allies in media, said on his War Room podcast that deploying such a large military force “sends a signal to Iran, but it also sends a signal to the American people: This is a major escalation.”
Mann said that putting troops on the ground in Iran will only “ensure that Trump can’t back out easily, which is exactly what [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, [US Sen.] Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and their ilk need to fracture Iran.
“Bringing this war to an end,” Mann said, “requires recognizing it can still get much, much worse, refusing to fall for the promise of ‘small special ops raids,’ and calling these courses of action what they are: a prelude to forever war.”
Climate science denier Donald Trump says that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateeringDonald Trump explains why he established his Bored of PeaceOrcas discuss rotting brain. Front Orca says “Wish someone would lock him up”.
