‘They don’t want you there’: Trump tells Netanyahu to leave Syria and Lebanon

‘They don’t want you there’: Trump tells Netanyahu to leave Syria and Lebanon – Axios

RT

15 Jul, 2026 

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly pressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to withdraw Israeli troops from Syria and begin redeploying forces from southern Lebanon, Axios has reported, citing US and Israeli officials.

The reported appeal is the latest sign of a widening rift between the two leaders, with Trump pressing Israel to scale back its military deployments while Netanyahu’s government continues to insist on maintaining them indefinitely.

According to Axios, Trump warned Netanyahu during a phone call on Thursday that Israel’s military presence in southern Syria risked further escalation.

“They don’t want you there. You should redeploy,” Trump reportedly told the Israeli leader. The president delivered a similar message regarding southern Lebanon, the outlet said.

The reported push follows a meeting between Trump and Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Türkiye last week. According to Axios, the Trump administration has spent months trying to broker a new security arrangement between Israel and Syria.

It also comes amid Washington’s attempts to implement a US-backed framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon reached last month. Under the deal, Israel committed to withdraw its forces from two ‘pilot zones’ in southern Lebanon and allow the Lebanese army to deploy there. Israel has yet to begin the withdrawal.

Israel says its troop deployments in southern Syria and Lebanon are necessary to prevent cross-border attacks similar to the October 7, 2023 Hamas assault. Several senior members of Netanyahu’s government have called for an open-ended military presence, with some also advocating Jewish settlements in the occupied areas.

In a statement released after the call, Netanyahu’s office said the prime minister had stressed “the need for security zones along Israel’s borders.”

The Jerusalem Post, citing defense officials, reported on Tuesday that the Israeli military was surprised by the Axios account and stressed there had been “no change on the ground” in either Lebanon or Syria.

In recent months, Trump has repeatedly criticized Israeli strikes in Lebanon, reportedly arguing Netanyahu had

The White House declined to comment on the details of the call and did not dispute Axios’ account. Instead, a US official reaffirmed Washington’s support for Israel, telling the outlet that “there has been no greater friend to Israel and a fighter for peace than President Trump.”

Why Syria’s new rulers still need Russia

 

Why Syria’s new rulers still need Russia

By Murad Sadygzade

Two developments in recent days offer a revealing picture of how Russian-Syrian relations are evolving after the change of power in Damascus.

On August 9, after roughly 18 months of negotiations, Russia and Syria agreed on a new memorandum defining the future framework for the use of facilities of the Russian military bases in Tartus and Hmeimim. Almost simultaneously, a delegation from Rossotrudnichestvo (the Russian federal agency responsible for foreign humanitarian and cultural cooperation) delegation held talks with Syrian officials and preparations were announced for reopening the Russian House cultural exchange centre in Damascus. Military cooperation is being reformulated rather than dismantled, humanitarian links are being restored, while trade, food supplies, energy and education continue to connect the two countries.

Much of the Western debate assumed that the fall of Bashar Assad’s government would sharply reduce Russia’s position in Syria. Moscow had been one of Assad’s principal political and military partners, while the forces that replaced his government had fought against the old order. Yet foreign policy is rarely governed by symbolism alone, especially in a country emerging from a devastating conflict. Syria’s new authorities are increasingly judging external partners by a more practical measure. What can each of them offer Syria now, when the country needs reconstruction, food, energy, security and political room for maneuver?

From political legacy to pragmatic partnership

The new Damascus authorities have no past Russia relations to remain loyal to, but they do have present problems they need to manage. Syria faces damaged infrastructure, weak fiscal capacity, serious energy shortages, high dependence on imported food and a still incomplete process of restoring effective state authority. Under such conditions, ideological preferences give way to utility. Partners are assessed by the markets, resources, technologies and security assistance they can provide.

This helps explain why the new Syrian leadership is seeking closer relations with the United States, the European Union, Türkiye and the Gulf states while avoiding a rupture with Moscow. That policy only appears contradictory if Syria is expected to choose one geopolitical camp. Damascus needs Western investment and access to international finance, but it also needs functioning supply chains, energy resources and military expertise. A country that has spent years under sanctions and war has little incentive to close channels that still work.

The discussion around Russian oil illustrates this clearly. In early August, Reuters reported that the Syrian side had signalled to Washington its willingness to substantially reduce purchases of Russian oil. Limiting Moscow’s economic presence is part of Washington’s regional strategy, but Russia has become a major supplier of oil to Syria, and replacing those volumes quickly is much harder than declaring an intention to diversify imports.

Damascus may try to reduce dependence on Russian supplies over time, but diversification is not the same as disengagement. The former increases Syria’s autonomy, while the latter would remove one of the few external channels already functioning at scale. Better relations with the West do not require the elimination of ties with Moscow, just as closer cooperation with Moscow does not prevent Damascus from attracting Western or Gulf investment. The more external options Syria has, the harder it becomes for any single partner to dictate the terms of its foreign policy.

Food and energy as foundations of stability

Russia’s importance is most evident when bilateral trade is examined not merely by total value, but by its composition. For Syria, what matters is that Russian supplies are concentrated in sectors directly affecting daily life, social stability and the government’s ability to keep the economy functioning – such as food security.

According to Syrian customs data cited by Reuters, around 85% of the wheat imported by Syria in the 2025-2026 season came from Russia, amounting to approximately 2.9 million tonnes. In a country where bread remains a basic element of mass consumption and household budgets have been weakened by years of conflict and inflation, such supplies have significance far beyond ordinary commerce. Grain affects state procurement, consumer prices, subsidies and public sentiment. A disruption in wheat imports can quickly spill over from the economic sphere and become a political problem.

Russia already has the production capacity, commercial interest and logistical experience needed to deliver large quantities. Abandoning such a source without a reliable substitute would be economically reckless.

The same applies to energy. Russia supplied Syria with around 16.8 million barrels of oil in 2025, while in the first months of 2026 deliveries reached roughly 60,000 barrels per day, an increase of about 75% over a relatively short period. Syrian domestic production remains far below pre-war levels and is insufficient to meet national demand. Imported oil is vital for transport, electricity generation, agriculture, industry, public utilities and reconstruction.

In a fragile post-conflict environment, oil shortages can undermine public confidence and deepen social tension. Western and Gulf actors can offer finance, investment and advanced technologies, but many such opportunities require time and political negotiations. Russian food and energy supplies respond to immediate needs, which is crucial for a government trying to stabilise the country now rather than several years from now.

A new military framework and renewed humanitarian ties

The new memorandum concerning the Russian military bases in Tartus and Hmeimim is a product of the same pragmatism. It can be seen as a reduction of Russia’s military footprint because Syria is regaining control over part of the civilian infrastructure and the old legal model is being revised – but it is still a restructuring, not a full withdrawal. After 18 months of negotiations, Moscow and Damascus managed to avoid the breakdown of military cooperation, instead finding a way to transform it.

According to the information made public, civilian facilities are to pass under Syrian management, while military sites are expected to be transformed into joint Russian-Syrian training and professional development centres. Part of the Russian military presence is also expected to remain. Its importance lies in creating a model the new Syrian leadership can defend politically. The previous framework was closely associated with the Assad era and could be portrayed as an infringement on sovereignty. The new model gives Damascus greater formal control while preserving access to Russian military expertise.

This compromise would make little sense if Syria had already decided to remove Russia from the country. The 18 months of negotiations suggest the opposite. Damascus wanted different terms, not a complete break, while Moscow wanted to preserve a meaningful role without insisting that previous arrangements remain untouched. The result is a framework better suited to the new political reality.

Syria’s armed forces face a long process of reconstruction. Training, command structures, equipment maintenance, border security and territorial control all require resources and external assistance. It is far from certain that the US or the EU are prepared to take responsibility for rebuilding Syrian defence capabilities comprehensively. Their interests in Syria are also fragmented, shaped mostly by counterterrorism, border security and regional competition. Support for a stable Syria does not necessarily mean support for a militarily stronger and more autonomous Damascus.

Russia has decades of experience dealing with Syrian military institutions, familiarity with much of the equipment in service and long-standing knowledge of the country’s defence infrastructure. Moscow is not Syria’s only possible security partner, but replacing its accumulated expertise quickly would be difficult.

The humanitarian dimension reinforces the same trend. Reopening the Russian House expands relations into education, language, culture and professional training. Generations of Syrians studied in the Soviet Union and Russia, creating professional networks and personal ties that survived political crises and leadership changes. Food and energy address immediate needs, military cooperation contributes to security, while education and cultural exchange create institutional ties that can outlive the current transitional period.

The new Syrian leadership is clearly not trying to reproduce Assad’s foreign policy. Damascus wants better relations with Europe and the United States, investment from the Gulf, expanded trade with Türkiye and reintegration into the international economy. Yet none of these goals requires a break with Russia. In fact, the wider Syria’s network of partners becomes, the more useful Russia may be as one of several external poles that help Damascus preserve strategic flexibility.

Value, not ‘values’

Russia remains important not because Syria’s new authorities share the worldview of their predecessors, but because Moscow still offers tangible value in sectors vital to recovery. It supplies food and energy, retains military expertise and possesses established institutional links. For a government trying to stabilise a country after years of war, predictability and practical capacity can matter more than political sympathy.

Western pressure may influence individual areas of Russian-Syrian cooperation, particularly where energy trade, sanctions and security arrangements are concerned. But persuading Damascus to abandon a partner already embedded in critical supply chains and security structures is much more difficult than urging it to diversify. Syria can cooperate with the West without accepting a zero-sum logic in which every gain in relations with Washington or Brussels must be matched by a loss for Moscow.

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/news/644263-syria-new-rulers-need-russia/

New Iranian Lego Video About USS Abraham Lincoln

Pentagon lost one-fourth of US drone fleet in war on Iran

(Photo credit: Airman 1st Class William Rio Rosado/Air Force)

The Cradle

AUG 14, 2026

At least 45 Reaper drones have been downed in the war, at a replacement cost of up to $2.25 billion

Washington has lost one-fourth of its entire MQ-9 Reaper drone fleet since the start of the war on Iran, the Washington Post reported on 13 August, citing anonymous US officials.

At least 45 MQ-9 Reaper drones, used to conduct surveillance and targeted strikes, have been shot down, accounting for around 25 percent of the US military’s supply.

Not all of those drones were shot down by Iranian air defenses, one official said, with an unspecified number of them crashing due to communication failures.

The Reaper drone is designed as both a surveillance and an attack drone and costs between $30 million and $50 million, depending on the type of hardware it carries.

Overall, the cost of losing these drones ranges from $ 1.35 billion to $2.25 billion.

The Ansarallah-led Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) downed as many as 27 MQ-9 Reapers between October 2023 and April 2025, including seven in roughly six weeks in spring 2025 during the US air campaign launched in response to Yemeni pro-Palestine operations.

The scale of US losses in the war on Iran extends well beyond the drone fleet.

US forces have exhausted nearly their entire stock of accurate long-range missiles, Reuters reported on 4 August, adding that Washington used up virtually all of its Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM), each costing around $1 million.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) has nearly emptied the land-based missiles it held before the war and has been drawing replacements from US stocks elsewhere in the world.

The depletion has raised concerns over readiness for future wars and over Washington’s capacity to deter Russia and China.

The Pentagon puts the cost of the war on Iran at $37.5 billion, while other estimates and trackers place it above $113 billion so far.

[…]

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/pentagon-lost-one-fourth-of-us-drone-fleet-in-war-on-iran

JPMorgan says Iran, Oman ‘legally justified’ to charge Hormuz navigation fees

 

(Photo credit: Mikkel Berg Pedersen / Ritzau Scanpix / AFP)

The Cradle

AUG 14, 2026

Denmark, Sweden, and Turkiye charge service fees for vessels to pass through narrow waters in their maritime territory, providing a precedent for Iran and Oman to do the same for the Strait of Hormuz

US investment bank JPMorgan has suggested that Iran and Oman’s strategy of imposing mandatory “navigational safety” fees to transit the Strait of Hormuz may be legally justified, the Financial Times (FT) reported earlier this month.

JPMorgan explained in a memo that international law grants ships the right of “innocent passage” through territorial waters, making it illegal to charge fees simply for transit (tolls).

However, charging fees for specific navigational and security services may be permissible, the memo argued.

For example, Denmark and Sweden currently levy charges on vessels transiting the Danish Straits. Rather than charging a toll, which would be illegal, they charge for services.

Denmark’s Pilotage Act makes pilotage mandatory for vessels carrying hazardous cargo – such as oil, chemicals, or gases – or more than 5,000 metric tons of bunker oil.

Pilotage refers to the service of guiding a ship or aircraft through hazardous, confined, or coastal waters and local areas using visual landmarks, charts, and specialized local knowledge. The pilotage fees are paid to the Danish Ministry of Business and range from $10,000 to $25,000 per transit for a Balticmax tanker.

Another country operating “a de facto tollbooth” on oil tankers is Turkiye, a US ally and NATO member, JPMorgan wrote.

Turkish authorities have “broad regulatory powers in the Turkish Straits and can charge for services under the 1936 Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits.”

Ankara charges a Suezmax oil tanker approximately $130,000 for a round-trip passage, roughly $0.13 per barrel of crude.

In exchange for the fee, Turkiye provides lighthouses, light, and channel buoys, as well as sanitary control and emergency rescue services.

According to JPMorgan, these precedents indicate that Iran and Oman’s plan to impose mandatory charges for “navigational safety” to transit Hormuz could be legally justified.

In a previous note published in May, the investment bank’s analysts wrote: “By structuring the measure as a service fee rather than a transit toll, and by coordinating with Oman as the other littoral state, Iran could attempt to create a legal framework that appears consistent with international maritime law.”

Amir Handjani of Responsible Statecraft (RS) argues that establishing an Iran–Oman transit authority would benefit commercial shippers.

“Ships get a predictable process instead of IRGC commanders deciding by whim who passes, who doesn’t, and an unpredictable pricing mechanism,” Handjani wrote.

At the same time, US sanctions and restrictive insurance clauses may pose severe compliance issues for international oil and shipping firms seeking to traverse the Strait of Hormuz under such a proposal.

Reuters reported on 6 August that if shipping firms pay service fees to Iran to pass Hormuz, this would trigger US sanctions imposed unilaterally on the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA).

“Any payment could lead to asset freezes,” Reuters quoted unnamed industry sources as saying.

Major shipping firms have also raised concerns over a clause introduced last month by Lloyd’s Market Association (LMA) that terminates vessel insurance if it pays a toll or charge for passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

[…]

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/jpmorgan-says-iran-oman-legally-justified-to-charge-hormuz-navigation-fees

New World Order Planning Committee and Membership Hacked

The Wise Wolf and Lily-Rose Dawson
June 18, 2026

[…]

The most powerful people on earth meet in Ireland to plan the next world war and the cage they intend to lock the rest of us in when it’s done. Not one network will breathe a word about it.

Breaking into the most secretive society in American power did not take a hacker’s skills. It took a right-click. Click “View Source,” read the code underneath the page, and there it is, the guest list to a meeting the most powerful people alive swore you would never lay eyes on.

Behind that wall sits a private club called Dialog, founded in 2006 by Peter Thiel. Yes, THAT Thiel. The man who built Palantir, the company that helps government track you, tag you, score you, and follow you, the company that wired into ICE, the Pentagon and into data about your life you never once agreed to hand over. Every year his little club flies the most powerful people on the planet to a sealed room with assigned seats and one iron rule. Whatever gets said in there never leaves. The press has politely filed it under “tech Bilderberg.” I’m going to call it what the leak proves it to be. The people who own your world, locking the door so you can never hear what they’ve decided to do with you.

The Hacker

The person who walked through it goes by “maia arson crimew,” and before anybody writes her off as a basement crank, understand that she is the hacker who tore the lid off the United States government’s secret No Fly List and cracked the surveillance company Verkada. She found Dialog’s membership lying naked in the website’s own code. WIRED confirmed it on June 16. Then a second source slid the magazine, the part that turns your stomach to ice, the full registration list for this year’s gathering, August 12 through 16, outside Dublin. 222 of the most powerful people on earth and the schedule of what they’re flying there to talk about. Continues at https://www.thewisewolf.club/p/peter-thiel-dialog-hacked-elon-musk-ireland-build-a-cult-world-war-3-leaked-guest-list

Metaphysical

From a metaphysical perspective, heightened energy of planetary alignments are leveraged by the predator class to strengthen outcomes of their nefarious agendas. https://www.ourgreaterdestiny.ca/p/total-solar-eclipse-august-12th-just

Because they know everything is energy, frequency, vibration and how it works.

There are no accidents and there are no leaks

Information that reaches the public is ‘meant’ to reach the public for a number of reasons including fear porn, which keeps humans cycling in low vibratory frequency that magnetizes more of the same through people, events and circumstances.

The truth invites minds to open, do some research, cooperate with others and align around a common purpose i.e. preservation of self, loved ones and our species.

[…]

Via https://www.ourgreaterdestiny.ca/p/new-world-orders-party-planning-committee

US ambassador to Israel slams settler siege of West Bank Palestinians as ‘terror’

Israeli settlers gather in front of Palestinian houses in the village of Qusra, south of Nablus, in the West Bank, August 12, 2026
Israeli settlers gather in front of Palestinian houses in the village of Qusra, south of Nablus, in the West Bank, August 12, 2026. © Zain Jaafar, AFP

France 24

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee on Thursday denounced a siege by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank village of Qusra as a “horrific act of terror”. Huckabee, an evangelical Christian pastor who in the past has embraced Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, said the Israeli army intervened on Wednesday after a US request, but the soldiers failed to remove the settlers.

The US ambassador to Israel, a staunch supporter of West Bank settlements, on Thursday denounced as “terror” a siege by settlers against Palestinians that drew an unsuccessful intervention by the army.

Settlers near Nablus since Sunday have blockaded Palestinian homes, including one owned by a US citizen, with residents saying they have been cut off from food and other supplies.

“Actions by those who carried out this horrific act of terror meant to intimidate and harass this family are disgusting,” Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador in Jerusalem, wrote on X in response to criticism of the US response.

“No excuse for such thuggish behaviour,” he wrote.

Huckabee said Israel had intervened at the request of the United States, its crucial ally.

The remarks are especially striking from Huckabee, an evangelical Christian pastor who in the past has embraced Jewish settlement in the West Bank, which Israel has occupied since 1967, and rejected the idea of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli military on Wednesday sent in forces who took away a tent, but witnesses said settlers defiantly remained at the site with blankets.

The army announced later Wednesday that it would send a new battalion to try to impose order.

Violence against Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the West Bank has increased dramatically since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas from the Gaza Strip.

More than 500,000 Israelis live in settlements in the West Bank, which are illegal under international law, among some three million Palestinians in the territory.

[…]

Via https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20260813-us-ambassador-to-israel-slams-settler-siege-against-west-bank-palestinians-terror

 

Israel Fabricated Iranian Assassination Threat Against Trump In Attempt To Ramp Up Iran War

Written By: Justin K.P.

The CIA Has Accused Israel Of Fabricating Iranian Assassination Threat.

Last month, “intelligence” was relayed by Israel that Iran was supposedly planning on assassinating Trump, which resulted in him “secretly flying out of Turkey in an alternate military aircraft”.

But the claims of an Iranian assassination attempt against Trump relayed by Israel were deemed to be bogus even by U.S. intelligence.

The Washington Post reported that “The assassination threat was relayed by the Israeli government to the CIA, where analysts did not view the intelligence as compelling and conveyed that skepticism to Trump administration officials”.

The article added, “Another official called the reports of threats against Trump’s life ‘Israeli-derived, not U.S.-generated, and viewed as low confidence.’”

The article added, “Some U.S. intelligence officials saw Israel’s sharing of the warning about threats to Trump’s life as designed less to inform than to influence the president’s decision-making and U.S. policy in the region, a current and a former U.S. official said” with the report quoting one official saying it “fit a broader pattern of Israeli intelligence reporting that some officials see as designed as much to shape presidential decision-making as to inform it”.

Indeed, fabricated claims of Iran planning to assassinate Donald Trump seem to have been Israel’s most successful deception deployed to get Trump to carry out its preferred policy on Iran.

Journalists Max Blumenthal and Ken Silva have documented how the FBI recruited Pakistani national Asif Merchant to take part in a sting operation supposedly surrounding an Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump, in what Ken Silvia called “at the very least… a highly controlled FBI sting operation that never posed a threat to Trump” if not “a case totally fabricated by the undercover agents”.

Since then, Benjamin Netanyahu has repeated baseless claims of Iran trying to assassinate Trump in an attempt to get him to go to war with Iran.

In June of 2025, Benjamin Netanyahu baselessly claimed that Iran was behind the assassination attempts against Trump by Thomas Crooks in Butler, Pennsylvania, and by Ryan Routh at Mar-a-Lago, claiming that Iran “tried to assassinate President Trump twice”.

This deception seems to have influenced Trump’s decision to bomb Iran for Israel in June of last year, with the White House tweeting “I was the hunted- now I’m the hunter” in reference to the bombing.

Fabricated claims of Iran trying to assassinate Trump were also a large part of Israel’s campaign to get Trump to enter a full-scale war on Iran this year.

According to Reuters, before the bombing , “Netanyahu, ‌determined to move forward with an operation he had urged for decades, argued that there might never be a better chance to kill Khamenei and to avenge previous Iranian efforts to assassinate Trump”.

It was also a key talking point of the late Neo-con Zionist senator Lindsay Graham, who joined Benjamin Netanyahu is lobbying Trump for the war.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Graham likened Iran’s leader to Adolf Hitler and told Trump that Iran was in a historically weak position. They talked about the regime’s efforts to assassinate Trump in 2024. ‘If you think Trump forgets stuff, you’d be mistaken,’ Graham said.”

Yet again, Israel has fabricated claims of Iran trying to assassinate Trump in an attempt to get him to ramp up the Iran war.

[…]

Via https://the307.substack.com/p/israel-fabricated-iranian-assignation

Paper Tiger: The Failure of America’s Trillion-Dollar War Machine

Symbol 2022 tiger | Moving paper tiger | Easy paper crafts ideas ...

by and | Aug 13, 2026

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the United States spent $21 trillion on its military between 2001 and 2024 (in constant 2024 dollars), equal to the combined military spending of the next eighteen countries. Iran barely made that list at all, spending only 2% of what the US did, and SIPRI estimated Iran’s 2025 military budget at only $7.5 billion. So how is Iran holding its own against the multi-trillion-dollar US war machine?

A critical difference between the US war on Iran and previous US and allied bombing campaigns against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Gaza, is that the US and Israel have failed to destroy Iran’s air defense system and cannot fly warplanes over Iran without risking the loss of planes and pilots to enemy fire. Iran has wisely built its critical defense infrastructure underground, with arms factories, weapons stockpiles and launch sites sheltered safely beneath its impenetrable mountainous terrain.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed on March 10th that the US had “total air dominance” over Iran, but that is still not true. Instead, US forces are mainly attacking Iran with stand-off weapons from outside Iran’s borders, radically depleting US stockpiles of extraordinarily expensive weapons.

Even though US warplanes avoid entering Iranian airspace, the Congressional Research Service has reported that the US has lost at least four F-15 fighters, an F-35, an A-10, seven KC-135 refueling planes, an E-6 AWACS plane, two MC-130J special operations aircraft, a helicopter, a high-altitude Triton drone and 24 MQ-9 Reaper drones.

By contrast, during the full-scale invasion of Iraq in 2003, US forces lost only one A-10 and six helicopters, after systematically destroying much of Iraq’s air defenses through a low-intensity bombing campaign conducted under cover of the so-called no-fly zones, which the US, UK and France unilaterally imposed after the First Gulf War in 1991.

In 2003, the US Armed Forces dropped 13,000 tons of bombs and missiles on Iraq in the first 30 days of the war. But only 800 tons, or 6%, of those munitions, were cruise missiles and other stand-off weapons like the ones the US is now relying on against Iran.

The US has already depleted a third of its stand-off and air defense weapons stocks, including JASSM and Tomahawk cruise missiles and SM-2, -3 and -6 anti-aircraft missiles, as well as half its stocks of Patriot and THAAD interceptors and the new Precision Strike Missiles that are replacing the shorter-range ATACMs. These missiles range in price from $700,000 each for JASSMs up to $12 million each for THAAD interceptors, and many will take years to replace.

So the US is using multi-million dollar missiles that are irreplaceable in the short term to try, and often fail, to intercept Shahed drones that cost Iran between $20,000 and $50,000 each. This is a stark contrast from Iraq in 2003, when the US weapon of choice was its 500 lb. GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb, which costs only $22,000, and the 7,000 bombs used to attack Iraq were easily restocked.

To make up for the Navy’s dwindling missile stocks in the war zone, the US is flying B-1 bombers from a British airbase at Fairford in England to fire Tomahawk missiles at Iran. So many planes are now flying from so far away to attack Iran that the US has also had to send dozens more aerial refueling planes to reinforce the sixty it already had stationed in Israel.

The Russians have demonstrated in Ukraine that the capacity to quickly ramp up production of relatively inexpensive artillery shells and drones can be more critical in a war than spending trillions on big-ticket weapons programs. Meanwhile, the corrupt US military-industrial complex has built a gold-plated revolving door between the US arms industry, the Pentagon top brass and a captive, co-opted civilian government. It has produced ever more expensive weapons, but it has lost nearly every war it has fought.

The only wars the US has won since 1945 were three short wars to recover small neocolonial outposts in Grenada, Panama and Kuwait, as the US took advantage of the weakening of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Otherwise, from Korea in the early 1950s to Iran today, the U.S. armed forces have lost every single war, while inflicting mass destruction on countries and people the US government claimed to be liberating. As the saying goes, “With friends like us, who needs enemies?”

Like many US industries, the post-Cold War US arms industry has become consolidated around a cabal of five firms (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon (now RTX), General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman), whose continued growth depends on ever-greater profits from increasingly expensive warships, warplanes and weapons, while endless wars and “threats” serve to justify siphoning more and more of America’s national wealth into their coffers.

The US government and corporate media have told Americans for decades that these extraordinary military expenditures and endless wars are something to be proud of, and many Americans have swallowed this perverted myth of US military prowess. The Pentagon works hard to bolster its public image, spending $2 billion per year on recruitment and retention, and $1.14 billion on advertising contracts in 2023 alone.

But that narrative is beginning to crack. As with many aspects of the US political and economic system, more and more Americans are questioning what they have been taught about the US military, and veterans themselves are often the most outspoken critics.

Writing in Business Insider about the problems facing US military recruiters, Kelsey Baker reported that many veterans of the “Global War on Terror” now discourage their own children from joining the military. Three of the recruiters Baker spoke to said guns had been drawn on them by the parents of teenagers they were targeting for recruitment, and one recruiter recalled an irate parent calling him a “baby killer” and a government slave.

In Iran, the United States is caught between escalating a catastrophic, unwinnable war it should never have started and the urgent need to rethink the illegal, corrupt, policy of aggressive war it has pursued since 2001.

The September 11 attacks were carried out by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers – not by the countries that the United States went on to invade and occupy. Yet our leaders responded to those horrific crimes with a multi-trillion-dollar investment in new weapons and imperial military expansion – a decision driven by precisely the “unwarranted influence” of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell speech in 1961.

US occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq were defeated by lightly-armed resistance forces defending their own countries. Yet  America’s leaders ignored their own failures and defeats, continuing to blindly climb the escalation ladder – first confronting Russia through the war in Ukraine and now taking on Iran in its own territory.

We should note that it was under Democratic administrations that the US backed a coup in Ukraine in 2014 and then rejected a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine in April 2022, while Trump, a Republican,  assassinated Iran’s top military leader in 2020 and launched wars on Iran, in cahoots with Israel, in 2025 and 2026. The US-Israeli genocide in Gaza, like the illegal occupation that spawned it, still enjoys bipartisan support in Congress, but not from the American people its members claim to represent.

Many Americans understood the dangers of the United States’ militarized response to the crimes of September 11th, 2001, even before the Pentagon embarked on its spending spree and unleashed mass destruction on country after country.

Chalmers Johnson wrote his prescient and widely-acclaimed book, Blowback, in 1999, explaining how US militarism and imperialism inevitably sow the seeds for cataclysmic events like the 9/11 attacks. He followed it  with three more books in his American Empire Project before his death in 2010.

Former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz told NPR a week after 9/11, “It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for the wrong done…We must make a distinction between punishing the guilty and punishing others. If you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many people who don’t approve of what has happened.”

By the time the United States was preparing to invade Iraq in 2003, international outrage was so widespread that it produced the largest global street protests in history, with up to 36 million people protesting in 60 countries. But US leaders ignored the world’s rejection of their lies, both at the UN and in the streets, and insisted on pretending that Iraq had chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons, and was somehow responsible for the crimes of September 11th.

The brainwashing of US occupation troops in Iraq was so complete that, even three years into the war, in February 2006, 85% of US occupation forces in Iraq told a Zogby poll that their main mission there was to “retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks.”

The lies, brainwashing, torture, civilian massacres and other war crimes that have corrupted the last 25 years of American military history – together with the outrageous cost – have turned the American people squarely against more new wars. But incredibly, they have failed to persuade Members of Congress to exercise their constitutional responsibility to stop feeding the out-of-control US military-industrial complex with record amounts of money, weapons and false pretexts for war.

Trump has requested a record $1.5 trillion in military spending for FY2027. The House-passed NDAA authorizes $1.15 trillion in discretionary military spending, with additional funding outside the NDAA bringing the administration’s overall military-spending plan to $1.5 trillion. The Senate has so far blocked its version of the NDAA.

The draft NDAA also includes unprecedented provisions to further integrate US and Israeli weapons production and intelligence sharing.

Trump’s frustration over the US-Israeli failure to defeat Iran stems from the same delusion of US military supremacy that infected his predecessors, especially since the end of the Cold War.

But in his 2018 book Losing Military Supremacy: the Myopia of American Strategic Planning, Andrei Martyanov warned that huge US investments in aircraft-carriers and other big-ticket warships and warplanes were rapidly being rendered obsolete by a new generation of Russian and Chinese missiles capable of traveling much faster and farther than the most advanced missiles in the US arsenal.

Now Iranian missiles and drones have fundamentally altered the military balance in the Middle East. They have driven the US military out of its bases in the Persian Gulf and are forcing US aircraft carriers to stay 1,000 miles from the coast of Iran. US Central Command has had to relocate its regional headquarters from Qatar to Jordan, but Iran has attacked it there too.

Now the United States is repositioning more of its forces in the Middle East to Israel. This raises the stakes, and increases the risks, of any future escalation in the war on Iran, and it further expands the entangling US military alliance with the genocidal state of Israel, which most Americans now oppose.

On August 8, Iran reiterated six points from the Memorandum of Understanding that Trump already signed on June 17, and insisted that the United States must comply with them before it will reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping.

Western commentators have described these as tough new conditions, but they are neither new nor tougher than before. They simply make explicit what was already implicit – for example, by specifically mentioning Palestine and Yemen, whereas the original memorandum merely called for ending the war “on all fronts, including Lebanon.” The United States and Israel started this war, and the United States has the power to end it by negotiating in good faith, based on the memorandum it already agreed to.

The American people have sacrificed enormously to pay for this obsolete, overpriced, and ineffective war machine. Many have paid with their lives, their limbs or their health. All of us pay the opportunity cost of our leaders’ warmongering and reckless squandering of our national wealth, leaving us without the basic support systems that our neighbors in other developed countries take for granted, from universal free healthcare and quality public education to living wages and paid vacation time.

[…]

Via https://original.antiwar.com/mbenjamin/2026/08/12/paper-tiger-the-failure-of-americas-trillion-dollar-war-machine/

Iran blocks US-backed plan for Syrian military intervention in Lebanon

Al Mayadeen English

Iran has thwarted a planned Syrian military intervention in Lebanon that was being prepared at the request of the United States, delivering a direct warning to Damascus that any Syrian military entry into Lebanese territory would be met with a regional response, according to Iranian sources cited by U News.

The Iranian warning included threats to stir up the Syrian–Iraqi border, open a confrontation line in Homs, support Alawite movements in the Syrian coastal region, and encourage the Kurds to return militarily to the outskirts of Aleppo.

The warning was not directed solely at Damascus; it also reached Ankara, Baghdad, Doha, and Riyadh, carrying the message that any Syrian adventure against Hezbollah in Lebanon would not remain confined to the Bekaa Valley but could turn into a broad regional confrontation within Syrian territory.

Iran succeeded in transforming any potential Syrian intervention in Lebanon from a military option that could be marketed to the US into a high-cost regional adventure, sources said. The Iranian warning, which reached Damascus through Turkish channels, included a threat of Iranian ballistic missile strikes that would begin from Damascus and include, in the first wave, more than 100 strategic targets, foremost among them the Syrian presidential palace.

The US-backed scenario: a three-pronged offensive into Lebanon

The scenario promoted by figures linked to the US embassy in Lebanon involves sending Syrian armed units from the Masnaa crossing toward Chtoura in the Lebanese Bekaa and on to the city of Zahle, simultaneously with mobilization from the eastern highlands toward the city of Baalbek.

The proposed scenario also includes declaring the city of Tripoli a Syrian zone of influence, with advancing forces benefiting from local environments, particularly in some Sunni-majority areas.

The presumed goal of the operation is to strike Hezbollah’s rocket infrastructure in the Bekaa and to create military and political pressure that would force the party to withdraw or accept new security arrangements.

Hezbollah prepared, treats potential Syrian operation as US-Israeli pressure

Iran’s warning has prompted regional parties to reassess the cost of the scenario, especially since Syria, emerging from deep military and political transformations, does not appear capable of enduring a new internal war.

Hezbollah is treating the information about a potential Syrian intervention extremely seriously and has taken precautionary measures in the Bekaa in anticipation of any possible Syrian incursion.

Hezbollah does not view the scenario as a separate Syrian operation, but rather as part of US–Israeli–regional pressure aimed at dismantling the structure of resistance in Lebanon from the east, following Israel’s failure to achieve a decisive result in the south.

Iraq’s rejection, UAE’s enthusiasm, and Saudi caution

Iraqi intelligence chief Hamid al-Shatri visited Damascus and informed Syrian officials of Baghdad’s rejection of any Syrian military expansion into Lebanese territory. Al-Shatri warned that Iraqi forces, primarily factions of the Popular Mobilization Forces, might enter Syrian territory if an intervention against Hezbollah occurred.

The Iraqi position added a further layer of deterrence to the Iranian warning, signalling that Damascus could face military pressure not only from within Syria but also from its eastern border.

The UAE is enthusiastic about funding any Syrian military operation in Lebanon, with officials quoted as ready to pay troop salaries as well as finance combat operations. This financial backing suggests that the UAE views the intervention as an opportunity to curtail Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon, despite the broader regional risks that Iran has highlighted.

Qatar rejects Syrian intervention in Lebanon, while Saudi Arabia does not object to an intervention as long as it is within arrangements that weaken Hezbollah without igniting the region. The divergent positions among Gulf states underscore the complex calculations at play, with Riyadh appearing to balance its opposition to Hezbollah against the dangers of a wider conflict that Iran has explicitly threatened to unleash on Syrian soil.

[…]

Via https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iran-blocks-us-backed-plan-for-syrian-military-intervention