US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth arrives on stage for a discussion during the US Army’s 2026 Annual Meeting and Exposition on October 14, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
“He is conducting state terrorism.”
While President Donald Trump this week indicated he’s standing by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in the wake of brutal midterm election losses, Democratic Party leaders have indicated they’ll use their new majorities in Congress to remove him from office, one way or another.
The Intercept reported on Thursday that source in the US Department of Defense, as well as on Capitol Hill, believe Hegseth’s days are numbered due to a number of factors, including an “endless raft of scandals, culture-war clownishness, and senseless policies.”
Wes J. Bryant, a senior targeting adviser and policy analyst at the Pentagon who was pushed out of his job last year, told The Intercept that Hegseth’s extrajudicial killings of people in the Caribbean and Pacific constitute war crimes.
“He is conducting state terrorism,” said Bryant. “He is 100% a war criminal. He needs to be prosecuted.”
A senior congressional staffer told The Intercept that a resolution to impeach Hegseth being offered in the US House of Representatives by outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) could gain significant bipartisan support if the defense secretary refuses to step down.
“There are very angry senior Republicans in the national security space who honestly pin a lot of their election losses on [Hegseth],” the staffer said. “They are furious… So they’re asking themselves, ‘What is even the harm in voting to impeach Hegseth?’”
In a Thursday social media post, Massie advised Trump that forcing Hegseth to leave right now is the best option he has.
“If Trump’s going to replace appointees like Hegseth, he should do it while he can still get the replacements confirmed in the Senate,” Massie wrote. “Also, my Hegseth impeachment resolution is a much gentler version of what’s coming when Dems control Congress. They’ll have hearings and trials.”
Hegseth, however, remained defiant in the face of the impeachment threat and posted a video on social media where he vowed to remain at the Pentagon.
“A disgruntled, defeated Congressman, along with all his Democrat allies, has also dropped sham articles of impeachment against yours truly—just like they tried against President Trump twice,” Hegseth said. “It didn’t work against President Trump, and it won’t work with me.”
Richard Ojeda, a retired US army major who on Tuesday won an election as the Democratic Party’s nominee in North Carolina’s 9th congressional district, was less than impressed by Hegseth’s bravado.
“Trump took five deferments to keep from serving in Vietnam so you can shove that tough guy talk up your ass,” Ojeda wrote in response to Hegseth. “You are a war criminal. Tick tock.”
Former Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) was similarly dismissive of Hegseth’s video and urged Congress to “impeach and remove Hegseth” then “prosecute him for war crimes.”
Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) predicted that Hegseth would soon be out of a job, whether he knows it or not.
“After failing our servicemembers and starting new forever wars, Pete’s desperate to keep his job,” wrote Crow. “Tick tock, Mr. Secretary. Better start packing up your make-up room at the Pentagon. Time’s up.”
An actor impersonating U.S. President Donald Trump stands behind symbolic prison bars set up inside an interactive billboard frame at Tajrish Square in Tehran, Iran. [Fatemeh Bahrami – Anadolu Agency]
There appears to be little prospect of lasting peace between Iran and the United States while Donald Trump remains in the White House. This is a view that an increasing number of serious actors across the region now seem to share. Eight months into Iran war, Washington has neither broken Tehran’s resolve nor found a clear path out. The president’s own remarks point to a narrowing set of options. Trump told TIME he does not believe peace with Iran is ever possible, a striking admission from the leader still expected to negotiate one.
Tehran, for its part, has set conditions it knows this administration cannot meet, insisting that sanctions and threats be lifted before talks resume and that not a single gram of enriched uranium leaves the country. Neither side is bargaining towards a settlement. Each is waiting for the political ground beneath the other to shift.
Trump’s problem is that the ground is shifting under him first, as the 3rd November midterms approach with his approval rating near 39 per cent and crude trading above 110 dollars a barrel. The House has voted three times to restrict his war powers in Iran, with Republican candidates in competitive seats now campaigning openly on ending the war to lower petrol prices. Facing a likely defeat, the president has promised no strikes before polling day while Central Command has reportedly been told to prepare for resuming major combat operations. Therefore, it is quite likely that Trump may order striking Iran even before the mid-term day.
Analysts have noted that a Republican defeat could strengthen this incentive, as a president with little left to lose at the ballot box faces fewer costs for escalation. Yet such strikes would do little damage control, since a Politico survey found 46 per cent of voters said ending the war before the election would not change their vote at all. Iran has meanwhile fortified its nuclear sites and warned that regional energy infrastructure would be targeted, so any parting blow risks sending oil prices even higher.
The president’s own inner circle appears to have read the same numbers and is quietly positioning itself for the aftermath. Vice President JD Vance, reportedly sceptical from the outset, has kept his distance and this week declined to endorse Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of Israel’s election.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, his chief rival for 2028, spent the same week in India on a trip devoted largely to trade rather than Iran.
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, by contrast, made an unannounced visit to Israel a day after Trump endorsed Netanyahu, keeping himself firmly in the frame. Commentators suggested as early as April that Hegseth was being set up as the fall guy should the war end badly. His visibility since has only reinforced that impression.
The Gulf states have reached the same conclusion. They are hedging accordingly against an American policy they no longer trust to last. The UAE joined the campaign against Iran in February, yet they opened a backchannel with Iranians lately after the realization that it is better to deal directly instead of relying on the US. Moreover, the UAE, by the virtue of being in support of the Saudis vis-à-vis Yemen, is trying to find a diplomatic way to lower tensions. It signals a striking reversal in barely eight months. Having absorbed thousands of Iranian missiles and drones, Abu Dhabi appears to be securing its own understandings before Washington’s next round begins.
Yemen shows how the burden is being shifted, since the United States has twice rebuffed Saudi requests for airstrikes against the Houthis and says it will not take kinetic action for now. Instead, the UAE has reportedly agreed to resume funding anti-Houthi forces in southern Yemen. This is an arrangement that lets Washington stay out while a partner carries the fight on its behalf.
Iran’s strategy rests on patience and its leaders appear confident they can absorb another year or so of American pressure before the political weather in Washington changes. Its posture towards Saudi Arabia fits this reading more closely than the images of burning airports suggest. Houthi strikes have killed at least 19 people at Saudi airports, and the Wall Street Journal has reported Revolutionary Guard officers helping to direct them. Yet within days of the deadliest attack, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called Riyadh to offer mediation with the Houthis and insist the crisis had no military solution.
The aim is not to destroy Saudi infrastructure but to convince the kingdom that American protection is unreliable and that any opening to Israel will carry a heavy price. Riyadh has begun to absorb that lesson, but the pressure is unlikely to ease while Trump remains in office and Tehran sees no reason to settle.
The real question is how Israel reacts to all this, both during the remainder of Netanyahu’s tenure and after it. Trump has endorsed Netanyahu so he can help “finish the job” against Iran, and Israel has reportedly asked that any renewed strikes wait until after its 27 October vote. Polls give Netanyahu’s coalition fewer than 50 of the 61 seats needed to govern, raising the prospect of a weakened caretaker with every reason to keep the Iran file burning.
A successor led by Gadi Eisenkot would hardly soften Israel’s line on the Iranian nuclear programme, but it might be less willing to tie national strategy to American president’s fortunes. Should Israel strike alone after an American exit, Gulf hedging would only accelerate and normalisation with Riyadh would recede further from view.
Tehran and the Gulf have made their calculations. Both now wait for a different figure in the Oval Office.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone … unless he gets distracted or falls asleep.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel. New Labour UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham continues Labour party policy of active support and complicity in Israel’s genocide.UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham admits to blatently lying and engaging in deception to become leader of the UK Labour Party and Prime Minister.Ed Miliband says that he and the Labour Party are full of shit criminalising people holding signs as terrorists despite anything he says.
Addressing the UN General Assembly in September, Donald Trump gloated about his strategy toward “narcoterrorist” cartels, the menace du jour in the United States’ self-declared backyard. Pulling numbers out of his ass per usual, Trump claimed that the manic bombing campaign against alleged seafaring narcoterrorists (read: fishermen) in Central and South America has cut maritime drug trafficking by 97%, and called drug cartels the “ISIS of the Western Hemisphere.”
While it was by no means the president’s intention, he accidentally hit the nail on the head with the ISIS comparison. Both the Islamic State and Latin American drug trafficking outfits are a direct result of US policy—as well as a convenient excuse for the Americans to continue terrorizing people under the pretext of combating the very phenomena they caused in the first place. Just as ISIS owes its origins to the US invasion of Iraq, drug traffickers wouldn’t be in big business if not for—what else?—the US’s so-called “war on drugs” that renders the international movement of illicit substances so lucrative.
‘Same effect on land’
AP (8/17/26) describes the US military’s role in Latin America as “supplying allies with weapons, intelligence and training to fight drug trafficking”—while acknowledging “a fraught legacy of support for military coups and dictatorships.”
This year, the Trump administration has significantly ramped up its drug war beyond just randomly blowing people up in the ocean. In August, the Associated Press (8/17/26) reported on the government’s plans to expand operations to terra firma, quoting Secretary of War Pete Hegseth:
It will be “like you saw with the strikes on the drug boats,” Hegseth said during a military drill in the jungle in Panama. “Same effect on land.”
But since there are generally more people on land than in the middle of the sea, there will no doubt be far greater opportunities for extrajudicial execution in this new terrestrial phase of operations.
The escalated campaign takes place against the backdrop of the US-led “Shield of the Americas,” a hemispheric “anti-cartel coalition” inaugurated in March that now boasts the participation of 19 countries. Ecuador has been among the most gung-ho about joining forces with the US to launch “anti-cartel” raids, with such impressive feats to show for it as the joint bombing of a drug trafficking compound that turned out to be a dairy farm.
‘Long and bloody history’
The New York Times (10/14/26) describes the US sending hundreds of combat troops to Latin America as “expanding its fight against drug traffickers.”
This month, the New York Times (10/14/26) was the first to report that the US had begun deploying a shit ton of troops to Latin America, and that a “new jungle training facility” in Panama was receiving “the first elements of a 600-soldier battalion from the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, NY.” The Times also mentioned the Defense Department’s “recent movement of several MQ-9 Reaper drones from Africa to Colombia and Ecuador.”
The article’s subhead—“The Pentagon is expanding its fight against drug traffickers, even as the plans recall a long and bloody history of US intervention in the region”—leaves us with the expectation that we might be hearing something about, I dunno, the long and bloody history of US intervention in the region. And yet the only reference to that history in the body of the article occurs in a single sentence that is a modified replica of the subhead: “But the prospect of US operations on Latin American soil has raised concerns about sovereignty, and has recalled a long and bloody history of US intervention in the region.”
Surely an example or three of “intervention” wouldn’t have taken up too much space on the pages of the Times; the authors could have mentioned that time in 1989 the US military bombed to smithereens an impoverished neighborhood in Panama City, killing as many as several thousand civilians, in a bid to capture Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. A longtime US buddy who had been on the CIA payroll for decades despite common knowledge of his involvement in the drug trade, Noriega had outlived his usefulness, and his drug dealings were suddenly so wrong and horrible as to necessitate the psychotic bombardment of poor Panamanians living in wooden shacks.
Or the Times could have delved into disproportionate US financial and moral support for the homicidal regime of Colombia’s far-right President Alvaro Uribe during the first decade of this century. Uribe himself appeared on a 1991 US Defense Intelligence Agency list of the “more important Colombian narco-traffickers contracted by the Colombian narcotic cartels”—but that was no reason he couldn’t be promoted to the role of America’s Super Drug War Ally and vanquisher of narcoterrorists.
As president, Uribe oversaw what came to be known as the “false positives” scandal, in which potentially more than 10,000 Colombian civilians were slaughtered by members of the Colombian army, who disguised the corpses as left-wing guerrillas in order to accrue promotions and vacation time. The Uribe administration then used these ostensible battlefield achievements to petition the US for yet more aid.
Last but not least, the Times could have brought up the Contra war on Nicaragua in the 1980s, when CIA-backed mercenaries unleashed terror on that nation while overseeing a profitable side hustle trafficking drugs to the US. The ensuing crack cocaine epidemic devastated Black communities across the country, but, hey, it was all in the name of saving the world from Communism.
Indeed, not only would such details give the Times’ readers an idea of the extent to which the US has traditionally been up to no good in Latin America (and at home), they would also soundly obliterate the official “drug war” narrative and expose it for what it is: a façade for imperial domination that really has nothing to do with stopping the flow of drugs at all.
‘Fight against drug traffickers’
The Wall Street Journal headline (9/25/26) called the US military carrying out assassinations in Ecuador “Fighting the Drug War on the Ground.”
But for the New York Times and other corporate media, speaking truth to power is not part of the job description. While they may critique the methods or effectiveness of the “war on drugs,” these media stop far short of questioning its entire premise, and time and again the US government is allowed to set the terms of the discourse. Thus we have the Times droning on about the “fight against drug traffickers,” the “war against drugs,” the “escalating US-led military campaign against drug traffickers,” and the move “to target cartels.”
In a typical example from September, the Wall Street Journal (9/25/26) announced that “US Troops Are Now Fighting the Drug War on the Ground in Ecuador.” This month, the Washington Post (10/16/26) reported on shifting tactics in US “anti-drug strikes at sea.” The Hill’s Filip Timotija (10/7/26) observed that “the Pentagon is expanding the US military’s multifront war against drug cartels in South America.” And so on.
For its part, Reuters (9/22/26) has described Trump’s escalation as an “expanding campaign against drug cartels,” even while diplomatically cautioning that “rights groups” have said the US boat strikes “amount to extrajudicial killings.” This sort of diplomatic maneuver is another hallmark of a corporate media that can never come right out and say that spontaneously pulverizing people on fishing vessels actually counts as extrajudicial killing, whether you’re a “rights group” or not.
Mechanism for control
CNN (5/12/26) reported on an alleged CIA assassination in Mexico as being part of an effort “to dismantle the entrenched cartel networks.”
In May, CNN (5/12/26) published an exclusive report titled: “CIA Escalates Secret War on Cartels With Deadly Operations Inside Mexico.” This is the same CIA, of course, that has been up to its ears in drug trafficking since the Korean war—including, as it so happens, in Mexico. (For a rundown on CIA narco-exploits over the decades, see the 1993 article “The CIA Drug Connection Is as Old as the Agency,” which somehow made it onto the New York Times website. It begins with a “recent news item: The Justice Department is investigating allegations that officers of a special Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials.”)
The CNN piece details the targeted assassination of alleged Sinaloa Cartel operative Francisco Beltrán, whose car was blown up in March on a highway outside Mexico City. According to CNN:
The Beltrán operation was part of an expanded, and previously unreported, CIA campaign inside Mexico—spearheaded by the agency’s elite and secretive Ground Branch—to dismantle the entrenched cartel networks.
On the surface, at least, CNN is thus being insubordinate by publishing information that the US government does not want people to know; as the article specifies, the news outlet even gets dramatically accused by the CIA spokesperson of “false and salacious reporting that serves as nothing more than a PR campaign for the cartels and puts American lives at risk.”
And yet the apparent defiance of the government only goes so far. At the end of the day, the CNN exposé simply reinforces the narrative that the US is in fact fighting against drug cartels—and not using the “drug war” apparatus as a politico-economic weapon and mechanism for control.
No reference is made to the history of US government agencies collaborating with Mexican drug trafficking groups, including the Sinaloa Cartel itself, or to the preponderant role of US weapons manufacturers in arming criminal organizations in Mexico. (Recall that brilliant experiment during the Barack Obama presidency when the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives facilitated the illegal purchase of thousands and thousands of guns on the off chance the trail would lead them to Mexican cartel leaders.)
‘Politics of extermination’
Oswaldo Zavala (Baffler, 6/18/26): “Government-sanctioned extrajudicial murders have been part of US military operations across the planet for several decades.”
Many corporate media interventions do take care to note that the current US approach in Latin America has not had any apparent effect on the drug trade; the New York Times (10/14/26), for instance, notes that “experts say that killing members of trafficking groups—even top leaders—does little to stem the flow of drugs.”
But media are never compelled to entertain the idea that stemming the flow of drugs may not even be the point—not even when, after using the drug war as a pretext, Trump straight-up admits that he attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its president for oil, plain and simple.
Since President Richard Nixon launched the “war on drugs” in 1971, the US still hasn’t managed to stem the flow, but the war has provided a whole lot of opportunities for the US militarization of Latin America and alliances with an array of regional right-wing nutjobs who are only too happy to facilitate imperial intrusion and neoliberal corporate assault at the expense of their populations.
The scholar Oswaldo Zavala, author of Drug Cartels Do Not Exist, contends in a recent essay for the Baffler (6/18/26) that “the ‘war on drugs’ is an overt politics of extermination.” It’s part of a panorama in which
from the Middle East to Latin America, a transnational military use of force has consistently been deployed against impoverished people in developing countries and sold as a war against “narcos,” “terrorists,” the artificial hybrid “narco-terrorists.”
Mexico, Zavala writes, has hosted the “most devastating such campaign in Latin America”; since the launch of the US-imposed war on drugs in 2006, more than 460,000 people have been killed and more than 134,000 disappeared, “a disproportionate number [of whom] have been poor, young, brown, uneducated men living in the outskirts of major cities.”
In their book Cocaine, Death Squads and the War on Terror:US Imperialism and Class Struggle in Colombia, Oliver Villar and Drew Cottle illustrate how the US-backed drug war in Colombia has traditionally not been against drugs, but rather for the control of the drug trade, which in the 1980s became a significant “source of profit for US capital.” To this day, the overwhelming majority of profits from the ongoing drug trade remain in the US.
‘Failed to curb cocaine supply’
Washington Post (7/27/26): “Trump has transformed traditional US drug enforcement into a military campaign that fuses the legal and strategic approaches of the war on drugs and the war on terror.”
But corporate media continue to portray the “war on drugs” as just that, casting hints to the contrary as mere failures of drug war tactics and strategy. In an article headlined “Deadly US Boat Strikes Have Failed to Curb Cocaine Supply, Pentagon and DEA Officials Say,” the Washington Post (7/27/26) speculates that “there might, in fact, now be more cocaine circulating in the United States.” But for the Post, it’s still all ultimately part of a “decades-long war on drugs”—and no need to turn the entire concept on its head.
It should be quite clear, after 250 years of the United States of America, that the government is very often lying through its teeth. But corporate media outlets just can’t bring themselves to integrate the mass of incriminating material on the political expedience of the “drug war” into one cohesive anti-systemic analysis that would upend the government narrative.
Forty years ago, in September 1986, then-President Ronald Reagan solemnly addressed the nation about the dangers of drugs, even as he was funding the drug-running Contras: “Drugs are menacing our society. They’re threatening our values and undercutting our institutions. They’re killing our children.”
And judging from the behavior of the media, it seems that defying the government line might be equally menacing to society.
Featured Image: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks at a forum of the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition in Panama City, August 12, 2026 (AP Photo: Matias Delacroix).
FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.
US President Donald Trump speaks in the White House Rose Garden on September 17, 2026. (Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian/White House)
A senior Iranian official said that “our conditions are an end to the war on all fronts, the release of our frozen funds, and an end to the naval blockade.”
Three days after saying that he’s weighing whether or not to “annihilate” Iran in a bid to end his increasingly unpopular and protracted war against the Middle Eastern nation, US President Donald Trump on Sunday again said that he is deciding if he should destroy the entire country of over 90 million people.
Fox News chief foreign correspondent Trey Yingst reported he “just spoke with President Trump about the situation with Iran” and that the US leader said he’s “in a deciding mode and that very big things are going to be happening in the not-so-distant future.”
Trump said he is considering three strategies for ending the 204-day war: “wiping Iran out, letting them rot economically, or making a deal.”
“My question is, if and when do I blow the entire nation up, they better behave,” Trump added, according to Yingst.
Fox correspondent: "The president said the US is in constant communication with the Houthis, and that they've agreed not to fight the United States. But the big headline here is the president said he's in a deciding mode as it relates to Iran, adding that the Iranians better… pic.twitter.com/nCTMRlEvWY
On Saturday, Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told Al Jazeera that Tehran has conveyed its conditions for ending the war to Qatari mediators and is “awaiting President Trump’s response.”
“Our conditions are an end to the war on all fronts, the release of our frozen funds, and an end to the naval blockade,” Rezaei added. “It is in Washington’s interest to accept these conditions. Trump’s threats will not achieve any results. We are prepared for a decisive war.”
Iran’s military responded to Trump’s latest threat by warning US allies Sunday that they will be considered “complicit” if American strikes resume, vowing “painful attacks” in retaliation.
Trump—who has been threatening to destroy Iran since at least 2019—is facing pressure on multiple fronts to end his highly unpopular and illegal war of choice, in which at least 23 US troops have died and tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed or wounded.
Americans are feeling the pain of higher consumer prices, especially for gasoline and diesel fuel, for a war that many say is making the country less safe. Six in 10 US voters queried in a new Fox News poll said Trump was wrong to wage war on Iran, while 7 in 10 respondents believe that his administration has no clear strategy for ending the conflict.
Republican lawmakers are also increasingly expressing dissatisfaction with the war and distancing themselves from the conflict ahead of November’s midterm elections, with some going as far as helping to pass a war powers resolution directing Trump to withdraw US forces from hostilities with Iran, and one—outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky—supporting the impeachment of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks during a ceremony commemorating the 25th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the courtyard of the Pentagon on September 11, 2026, in Arlington, Virginia. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“What haunts me,” said one anti-war activist, “is how little accountability there has been for those who lied us into war—and how those same lies are now recycled to justify the attack on Iran.”
Twenty-five years later, Republican politicians are still using 9/11 to justify war in the Middle East. And they’re still lying shamelessly.
During remarks outside the Pentagon on Friday commemorating the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attack, President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth portrayed their deeply unpopular war in Iran as part of the lineage of the global War on Terror, which was marked by a pair of lengthy military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost well over $2 trillion and millions of lives.
Trump declared that he was prosecuting his new war with Iran to fulfill the “sacred oath” sworn in the names of the nearly 3,000 people whose lives were lost that day, that “we will never, ever forget.”
Hegseth seems to have forgotten quite a lot. Attempting to draw a link between the ideology of the al-Qaeda hijackers who committed the attack and the current Iranian government, the defense secretary said, “Our warriors have fought an Islamic theocracy that has wished us death for nearly half a century, that cheered on 9/11.”
Hegseth on Iran:
Our warriors have fought an Islamic theocracy that has wished us death for nearly half a century, that cheered on 9/11. pic.twitter.com/8jh8y1SMjn
Despite two decades of official hostility, the people and government of Iran have offered vivid messages of sympathy and condemnations of terrorism in the aftermath of last week’s attacks on New York and Washington…
Hard-line conservative Iranians and moderate reformers, top government and religious officials, Friday prayer leaders, and citizens on the street have uniformly denounced the plane hijackings and suicide crashes of September 11. Some, including President Mohammad Khatami, have offered to join an international campaign against terrorism under certain circumstances, including United Nations sponsorship.
On the day of the attacks in 2001, Khatami issued a swift condemnation over Iranian state TV of what he called “the terrorist operations of hijacking and attacking public places in American cities, which have resulted in the death of a large number of defenseless American people.”
Khatami later decried the attacks as “the ugliest form of terrorism ever seen.” According to later congressional testimony by a State Department official, he also asked to visit ground zero to light a candle out of respect for the victims, a request that was denied by the administration of then-US President George W. Bush.
Days after the attacks, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—who was killed this past February during the opening salvo of the joint US-Israeli war against Iran—agreed at the time that “mass murder of human beings is condemned,” though he also suggested that “expansionist” US foreign policy had played a role in provoking the attacks.
The US-funded Radio Free Europe reported that, far from celebrating in the streets, around 2,000 Iranians had gathered in Tehran for a candlelight vigil a week after the attacks, at which participants “chanted against terrorism and expressed their sympathy with America.” Days earlier, the Post reported that about 50,000 spectators at a World Cup qualifying match in Tehran observed a minute of silence in recognition of the attacks.
Iran’s support for the US following the attack also went beyond words. While still describing Iran as the world’s leading “state sponsor of terrorism,” a May 2002 State Department report emphasized Iran’s cooperation with US operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
This included offering search-and-rescue assistance for downed US air crews, diplomatic cooperation at the 2001 Bonn Conference to build Afghanistan’s post-Taliban government, and promising border controls to prevent fleeing Taliban and al-Qaeda members from escaping.
Though Trump promised at the outset that it would last only a matter of weeks, his war with Iran has now lumbered into its sixth month with no sign of stopping. It has spilled out into a wider Middle Eastern conflict that has taken the lives of about 8,000 people, displaced millions, and wreaked financial chaos.
The war has included US attacks on civilians that have had a similar resonance with Iranians that 9/11 has for Americans, most infamously the bombing of an elementary school that killed at least 150 people, most of them children.
According to one economist’s recent estimate, the war has conservatively cost the average American household about $1,200 over six months, combining the direct cost to taxpayers with the knock-on effects of spiking oil prices and broader inflation.
Though around two-thirds of Americans say they oppose the war and Congress has ordered Trump to bring it to an end, recent reports indicate that the administration is considering expanding it following this November’s midterm elections.
Trump described the war as a grim necessity on Friday, in part to honor those who perished on September 11, 25 years earlier.
“That’s why we fight today,” Trump said. “We don’t have a choice. There can only be victory. We fight hard. We fight to win.”
Medea Benjamin, the co-founder of the anti-war group CodePink, reflected earlier this week on how the tragedy is still being used to this day to justify endless wars overseas.
“What haunts me today is not only the devastation of the invasion, but how little accountability there has been for those who lied us into war—and how those same lies are now recycled to justify the attack on Iran,” Benjamin said. “The War on Terror did not end.”
“The same impunity that has shielded the architects of the global War on Terror,” she added, “now emboldens the war criminals behind the genocide in Gaza and the Minab school massacre in Iran.”
