Top Stories Daily Listen Now
RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "military"

House GOP stealthily moves to reshape US military in ‘unprecedented’ fashion: report

House Republicans on the Armed Services Committee released their defense budget proposal this week for fiscal year 2027, which includes more than $1.1 trillion in spending, but buried within the 500-plus-page document is a provision that one foreign policy analyst warned Friday was “unprecedented,” and could reshape the U.S. military indefinitely.

That provision is titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” and according to Ben Freeman, a foreign policy analyst at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, it would “provide a higher level of military-industrial integration [with Israel] than the U.S. has with any other country in the world.”

Writing in a report published by Responsible Statecraft, Freeman noted that the United States and Israel “already work together heavily” on military operations and intelligence sharing. He also acknowledged that the United States “has worked closely with its NATO partners” militarily. The provision buried within the defense spending proposal, however, was “a different beast entirely,” Freeman warned.

“It would fuse the U.S. and Israeli defense sectors in multiple areas vital to the battlefields of the future, like autonomous systems and cyber,” Freeman wrote. “It would also bring extraordinary Israeli influence to the U.S. beyond what it already has through the Israel lobby and its robust network of social media influencers.”

The expanded Israeli influence on U.S. politics that the budget provision may clear a path for, Freeman cautioned, could become irreversible.

“It would give the Israeli government the opportunity to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in U.S. politics: jobs in the U.S.,” Freeman wrote.

“By expanding or starting new co-production facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs on U.S. soil, thereby securing allies among members of Congress who represent the districts where those jobs lie.”

Freeman continued, “The result could well be a U.S. political system even more susceptible to the whims of an Israeli government that seemingly has no qualms about drawing the U.S. into military conflicts in the Middle East.”

Trump lobs ominous threat at US ally during brisk press conference

Trump issued an ominous threat to a key U.S. ally while speaking to reporters on Saturday.

When a reporter asked why Trump is removing 5,000 troops from Germany, the president said that the scale will be larger. His comments come after GOP leaders rebuked Trump for the current reduction of troops, arguing that it "sends the wrong signal" to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"We're going to cut way down," Trump said. "We're cutting a lot further than 5,000."

The withdrawal of armed forces from Germany comes as the U.S. fights a war in Iran but struggles to recruit allies into the conflict.

Nobel winner sounds alarm over Hegseth's 'loyalty tests': 'Should terrify every American'

Pete Hegseth's new directives for US military personnel are undermining the standard set by previous administrations, a Nobel Prize winner has argued.

Hegseth has implemented a contentious grooming standards directive that authorizes military members to receive government-funded laser hair removal treatments while restricting eyelash extensions and certain nail polishes, justified "in support of Army readiness."

Hegseth announced a ban on military personnel attending graduate programs at nearly two dozen elite universities including Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Yale, and Georgetown, which he characterized as bastions of "wokeness" and "wicked ideologies" in February.

More recently, Hegseth ruled that military personnel would be allowed the right to refuse a flu vaccine, a decision which has been criticized by Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.

Krugman believes these recent directives have undermined the US military standards and that they instead provide a service to President Donald Trump and, by extension, Hegseth.

Krugman wrote in his Substack, "This isn’t simply about vaccines and facial hair. These directives are part of a larger project, another step in Hegseth’s drive to cultify the US military. What do I mean by cultifying the military? I mean creating an environment in which professional integrity, military discipline, and historical precedent are destroyed in service to the personality cult of Donald Trump and his enforcer, Pete Hegseth.

"Think of these directives as loyalty tests. Hegseth can indulge his faux concerns about liberty while aligning himself with the science-hating right. If you are an officer concerned about the welfare of your troops and voice your concerns, you are out. Mention that the directive against beards is nonsensical and disproportionately harms black male soldiers with a common skin condition, then you are a woke weakling and are sent packing.

"If you are a general in possession of critical skills and hard-won experience, but served during the Biden administration, you will be unceremoniously fired.

"Simply put, the method in Hegseth’s apparent madness is to destroy the integrity of the professional military corps through destructive and despotic behavior that drives out those – like Admiral Holsey – who hold to their principles.

"And this should terrify every American. A powerful military always poses a potential threat to democracy. To keep that threat in check, the military must be presided over by an officer corps that understands that its duty is not to any one person, but to the Constitution and the rule of law. The U.S. military has been largely insulated from political influence since the nation’s founding. But Hegseth is trying to subvert that."

The single move that will bring Trump's plans crashing down

The drumbeats for expanding our (and Israel’s) war with Iran are loud.

Cable news panels talk about strategy. Politicians talk about deterrence. Pentagon briefings talk about targets and timelines. But there’s one thing missing from almost every conversation in Washington.

Risk.

Not the geopolitical kind. Not the think-tank kind. Real risk. The kind that lands in your living room in the form of a letter from the government telling your family that your child is being sent to war.

For most of modern America’s leaders — and certainly for generations of the Trump family — that risk simply doesn’t exist.

We live in a country where fewer than one percent of the population serves in the military. The burden of fighting America’s wars has been placed on a narrow slice of our people. They’re mostly working class, many come from rural communities, and many join because it’s one of the few stable ways to get healthcare, education benefits, and a future.

Meanwhile the people who debate whether we should be bombing Iran are almost never sending their own kids.

That didn’t used to be the case.

During World War II nearly every American family had someone in uniform. War was a shared national sacrifice, and politicians understood that every decision they made could cost the life of one of theirs or their neighbor’s son or daughter.

I remember well how Vietnam brought that reality home in a different way. I hated it, protested against it, got kicked out of school for those protests, and still curse LBJ and Nixon for their lies that killed nearly 60,000 of my fellow citizens. But that, in retrospect, is exactly how it should be. That protest/debate was a good thing for our nation, every bit as good as the war was wrong and bad.

The draft lottery meant that millions of young Americans suddenly had skin in the game of war. College campuses erupted in protest not because students were uniquely radical but because they knew they might soon be the ones crawling through rice paddies under machine gun fire in a war that the country had, by then, fully realized was based on lies.

The draft was what forced our country, our families from coast-to-coast, to confront the human cost of war. And eventually it forced our government to end that war.

In 1973 Richard Nixon and Congress ended the draft and created today’s all-volunteer military. The argument sounded reasonable at the time, particularly after the upheaval of Vietnam. A professional military would be more skilled and more motivated, they said. It would be more competent, even more lethal.

But then something else happened because the draft ended: war became easier for politicians to throw our military into, because the dissenting voices in the ranks had vanished.

When only a tiny slice of Americans are at risk for fighting, bleeding, and dying, the political price of launching a war drops dramatically. Congress members can vote for military action without worrying that their own children or those of their constituents will pay the price. Television pundits can cheer for bombing campaigns without imagining their own kids in uniform.

The result has been nearly nonstop war for half a century, from Ronald Reagan’s attack on Grenada straight through to today.

Afghanistan lasted 20 years. Iraq dragged on for nearly two decades. The United States has been involved in military operations across the Middle East and Africa that most Americans can barely locate on a map.

Now we’re staring at the possibility that Trump’s attacks against Iran could metastasize into World War III.

The stakes here are much higher than George W. Bush’s wars that he told his biographer, Mickey Herskowitz, were fought to get him a second term in the White House. Iran isn’t Iraq or Afghanistan: it’s a nation of nearly 90 million people with a large military, deep regional alliances, and the ability to disrupt global energy markets overnight. It’s twice the size of Iraq or Texas.

And a war there could ignite the entire Middle East, which could easily spread to Europe (and already has, in a minor way, with Iran’s attacks on Cyprus and their missiles sent at Turkey). As we deplete our munitions, it might also encourage China to try to take Taiwan.

Yet the discussion among Republicans in Washington sounds strangely casual. Analysts debate air strikes on TV and guess about retaliation scenarios the way sports commentators pontificate about playoff strategies. Pete Hegseth struts and preens for the camera like a tough guy.

All because it’s easy to talk that way when you know your family won’t be fighting.

Now, imagine a different system.

Imagine that the United States had a national draft that applied equally to everyone. Rich kids and poor kids. Red states and blue states. The children of senators, CEOs, and television hosts alongside the children of factory workers and teachers.

This is how it works today in Norway (includes women), Sweden (includes women), Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Israel (includes women), South Korea, Singapore, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. In Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, and Sweden young people can opt to serve in the nonprofit sector (like hospitals or environmental work) instead of the military.

The draft provides a right of passage into adulthood for young people, something found in the history of every society. Those who serve for a year could be rewarded with free college or trade school. They’d get out of their local bubble, see the world, meet and work side-by-side with people who don’t look or speak or pray like them.

These are all good outcomes of national service.

And it’s successful: other than Israel, which has its own unique problems, you’re not hearing much bellicose war rhetoric from any of those nations’ leaders.

If we had that here, do you think Republicans would still talk so casually about war with Iran? Would Congress rush to authorize military force if their own sons and daughters might be called up next month?

History suggests the answer is no.

Countries with universal service become more cautious about war because the entire society feels the consequences. Parents ask harder questions, students organize, and communities demand clear, explicit, detailed answers about why a conflict is necessary and exactly what victory would look like.

Shared sacrifice, in other words, produces democratic accountability. And right now America doesn’t have that.

Instead, we’ve created a system where war is something that happens to somebody else, that roughly one percent who volunteer. It’s fought by someone else’s kids. It’s endured by someone else’s family.

That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work.

The Founders of our republic deeply distrusted standing armies, so much so that they wrote into the Constitution that the army must be funded every two years or it will cease to exist. It’s right there in Article I, forcing our country to reevaluate our military and its use every time Congress reconvenes:

“The Congress shall have Power…To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”

They believed that America should only go to war when the public truly understood the stakes and Congress had engaged in a vigorous, public debate about it. That’s why declaring war was not among the powers the Constitution gives the president.

“The Congress shall have Power…to declare War…”

When there was a national consensus, and only then, would we go to war. Citizen soldiers were supposed to ensure that war remained a last resort rather than a convenient tool of foreign policy. This BS like Republicans today are doing as they hold briefings for Congress behind closed doors would have horrified them.

And ignoring that concern is how Trump got us here: the all-volunteer military quietly erased that safeguard.

Don’t take me wrong: the men and women who volunteer to serve our nation deserve enormous respect. They’ve carried the weight of America’s wars with courage and sacrifice.

The problem isn’t them: it’s the rest of us. When the risks of war are concentrated in a small segment of society, the rest of the nation stops paying attention. Politicians face less pressure, military interventions multiply, and wealthy defense contractors prosper.

The human cost of war, in other words, gets hidden.

But a fair national draft would change that overnight.

It wouldn’t make America more warlike: history shows it would do the opposite. If every family knew their children could be sent to fight, Americans would demand diplomacy first, second, and third.

Wars would still happen when they truly had to, but they wouldn’t happen so casually. A president who just orders the troops to start shooting at a country like Iran would be held to account by every family in the country.

As the war with Iran grows hotter, we should be asking a simple question that almost nobody in Washington wants to hear:

“If the road to war with Tehran required the sons and daughters of the billionaire and political class to march beside everyone else’s kids, would we still be there?”

Trump's idiot just gave a massive gift to jihadi recruiters

Two weeks in, the Trump administration continues to give conflicting assessments on Iran. Contradicting himself repeatedly in the span of hours, Donald Trump claimed on Monday the war was “very complete.” That calmed the markets. Later that afternoon, the Department of Defense said the opposite, posting on X that the U.S. had “only just begun to fight,” and promising “no mercy” from Secretary Pete Hegseth’s non- politically correct, rules-eschewinglethality warriors.”

Aside from fueling the scary impression that children are in charge of the arsenal, Hegseth’s continuing obsession with lethality blunts any strategic objectives the war was supposed to serve, not that those have ever been clear. The only certainty is that Trump, who doesn’t care about polls, does care about the price of oil. Once it passed $120 a barrel, a flashing red light to economists, Trump stopped chest thumping long enough to focus on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, describing the war as “limited” to cushion the financial fallout from his own poor judgment.

It’s too early to know whether the potential nightmare scenario — closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran controls — will happen, pushing oil prices high enough to trigger a world recession. But while Hegseth continues to strut like a rooster with an AK-47, recession is the least of our worries.

Lethality over objectives

Hegseth says victory is all about lethality, or killing the enemy. It’s like watching a caveman trying to play chess.

Long-term geopolitical success requires achieving realistic and sustainable political objectives at a reasonable cost. Neither Hegseth nor Trump comprehends that the U.S. did not lose in Iraq and Afghanistan because we lacked “lethality.” We lost because the objectives we sought were unattainable given political realities on the ground.

Those same political realities are rampant in Iran, including:

Trump’s focus on oil while Hegseth obsesses over lethality exposes the folly: They’ll never navigate geopolitical complexities they can’t understand.

A game until someone gets hurt

In his book The War on Warriors, Hegseth complained that American troops are too wedded to rules.

“Modern war-fighters,” he urged, shouldn’t worry about rules of engagement. Instead, Hegseth counseled, “America should fight by its own rules.”

Hegseth’s own rules serve up death and destruction as entertainment. One official government account depicted the war in Iran with Call of Duty gameplay interspersed with real footage of Iranians being killed. As if war were a video game, the post showed a player racking up a string of kills. Another social media post interspersed clips from Braveheart, Gladiator, Superman and Top Gun with real kill-shot footage from Iran.

Hegseth may think he’s still a Fox News personality whose job is to turn tragedy into entertainment, but for serious military strategists, the messaging is appalling and dangerous.

Hegseth endangers Americans

Hegseth’s strutting displays of manosphere bluster may attract basement incels and Fox News viewers, but over the long haul, they are dangerous.

Gaining the upper hand on an enemy’s morale is a valid objective; it can be decisive in competitive contexts to create “a contagion of despair.” Napoleon Bonaparte said morale “is to the material as three is to one.” But you have to know your enemy first.

Trump and Hegseth don’t seem to understand that vast cultural differences sent us home from Iraq and Afghanistan with our tails between our legs. A fundamental ignorance of those societies led to U.S. failures in both wars — the U.S. never adapted to local dynamics, leading to increased insurgencies, alienation of the people, and the inability to build stable local governments.

Boots on the ground

Trump has said he is open to putting boots on the ground in Iran, which would mean our troops encountering Islamic fighters who sincerely believe that “death to Americans” will get them into heaven.

Iran’s primary military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), acts as an expeditionary force through its Quds Force, and manages a vast network of regional proxies including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthis. The IRCG acts as the hub among Islamist militant groups throughout the Middle East, motivating terrorists who are violently opposed to the United States.

These Muslim forces believe “jihad,” or armed struggle, is the highest form of religious devotion, one that offers a guaranteed path to salvation and atonement, which the IRGC reinforces through steady indoctrination. The IRGC will likely use Hegseth’s rhetoric and video game posts as recruitment tools: Look how the Great Satan is slaughtering our children and laughing.

Hegseth’s videos will be useful to Iran as the IRGC exploits nationalistic and religious sentiments among terrorists. Iran will use Hegseth’s hubris against us, and the danger will not be limited to war zones. As we learned on 9/11, jihadist groups are the main perpetrators of suicide attacks worldwide. Hegseth is goading them into action.

  • Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

GOP senator uncorks crude ultimatum to Europe: 'Take the skirts off!'

WASHINGTON — A Republican U.S. senator used insulting and sexist language to demand European countries join America and Israel’s war against Iran, saying NATO allies should “take their skirts off, maybe put some boots on and help the rest of the world out.”

“I gave up on Europe helping us years ago,” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) told reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday.

“They're all talking,” Marshall continued, citing President Donald Trump’s long-held grievance over defense spending levels among the NATO alliance.

“They told us they would get to 2 percent of GDP, and they never did. Half of them never did. Now they're probably 5 percent. They're all talk.”

While the U.S. clearly contributes most, analysts contest claims that NATO countries don’t pay their fair share, especially after most European nations increased spending since Trump threatened the fate of NATO at the start of his second term in the White House.

Since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran late last month, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and leaders of other traditional U.S. allies have grappled with how to deal with the Trump administration's demands that they support a war that remains unpopular across the globe.

On Thursday, Sen. Marshall reached back into 20th-century history to dismiss the Marshall Plan under which U.S. aid helped revive and rebuild Europe in the aftermath of World War Two.

“You know, World War II is over with,” Marshall said. “The Marshall Plan is over with.

“It's time for Europe to put some jeans on, take their skirts off, maybe put some boots on and help the rest of the world out.”

Marshall’s committee assignments do not include roles on panels dealing with foreign or military affairs.

His official Senate website highlights the seven years he served in the Army Reserves, while also painting him as a traditional conservative family man, “a physician, devoted father, [and] grandfather” and OB/GYN who “delivered more than 5,000 babies.”

'I was wrong'

Marshall already made news this week over errant Iran comments.

Appearing on CNN on Tuesday, the senator was asked whether, with seven Americans dead and 140 wounded, and a climbing death toll in Iran, he stood by comments to Fox News last June about U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear program.

“I think it will take them years to restart their nuclear program,” Marshall said then.

“I think that they can’t control their airspace; they don’t have the will to do it. From what I’ve seen, I’m in shock and awe. You know, it’s just, it’s shocking how much damage we did to their facilities.”

Back then, Trump claimed Iran’s nuclear program had been obliterated, even as he says new strikes were necessary to stop work on nuclear weapons.

Asked if he had seen intelligence to back up the president’s change of tune, Marshall told CNN: “Look, I was wrong. They were restarting their nuclear program.”

Marshall also said, “I hate war,” and saluted U.S. service members killed or injured.

Pressed on why he had changed his view about the effect of last summer’s strikes, the senator said: “I believe that we obliterated those particular nuclear facilities, but now they were starting nuclear programs in other places.

“And just their willingness to do that was just thumbing their nose at us.”

Trump utterly hates this everyday thing — and it could be what crushes him

My hearing is lousy, so I recently decided to buy some hearing aids — very special advanced AI hearing aids that let me hear compliments extremely clearly but screen out all negative criticisms.

I’m joking, of course, to make the point that if such hearing aids were ever available, the people who bought them would discover they’re more disabled than they were when they couldn’t hear well. That’s because while we all love praise, the most important feedback we get tells us what we’re doing wrong.

Without this critical feedback, we might inadvertently insult friends, drive into oncoming traffic, walk off cliffs, make dumb mistakes on the job, or even (if we’re President), get the United States into a war without obvious end.

In other words, without critical feedback, we would totally f--- up.

But critical feedback is difficult to get even under the best of circumstances. You’re lucky if your best friend or spouse tells you your breath smells or you need a shower or you’ve got snot hanging out your nose, because almost no one else will.

The higher you go in any hierarchy or power structure, the more difficult it is to get critical feedback because you’re surrounded by people who want to please you and dare not displease.

When you have power to promote or fire them, make their lives happy or miserable, give them their heart’s desire or cast them into living hell, they’re not going to tell you that you just made a fool of yourself with a client or that your joke was tasteless or you’re behaving like an a--hole. They’ll tell you that you’re wonderfully clever, funny, charming, and perfect.

This is why many people in positions of authority in effect wear my advanced AI hearing aids that amplify compliments and screen out criticisms — which makes them vulnerable to making big mistakes.

So, if you’re a CEO or chairman or director or president of anything, you need to make a special effort to get critical feedback — soliciting it, rewarding it, showing that you value it by changing your mistaken views or asinine behavior.

When I was secretary of labor, I made a point of promoting staff who gave me constructive criticism. Even so, it was still hard to get honest feedback.

One day after a television interview, when I was heading back to the office surrounded by people telling me how well I looked and how cogent and thoughtful I sounded, one young staff member said very quietly, “Mr. Secretary, you used your hands so much that you blocked your face.”

I stopped. The others seemed horrified. I asked the young staffer, “What else did you notice?”

“Well,” she said, hesitatingly, “you kept using terms like ‘Earned Income Tax Credit’ and ‘discretionary budget’ that no one outside official Washington understands. You need to use everyday English.”

“Thank you!” I said, and a few days later made her a special assistant for communications. For the next several years, she gave me some of the most valuable feedback I’ve ever received.

Which brings me to Trump.

Not only does he love and solicit praise — if you can bear them, watch his sycophantic cabinet meetings — he absolutely, utterly, passionately, hates criticism.

He goes ballistic on anyone who gives him negative feedback. He punishes journalists who write bad stories about him. He fired the then head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics who told him and the rest of the world how badly the economy was doing.

He explodes in fury at staffers who give him bad news. When former Attorney General William P. Barr said there was no evidence that the 2020 election was stolen, Trump flung his lunch across the room and smashed his plate in a fit of anger as ketchup dripped down the wall.

“I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has lost contact with — he’s become detached from reality,” Barr testified to the January 6 committee.

All this may explain his decision to go to war in Iran, without a clear objective or an exit strategy.

According to the New York Times, White House officials have become pessimistic about the lack of a clear strategy to finish the war, but “they have been careful not to express that directly to the president, who has repeatedly declared that the military operation is a complete success.”

If they’re careful not to express their pessimism to Trump, how the hell is he going to see the depth of the hole he’s dug for himself and the United States?

Privately, aides say they’re “frustrated over Trump’s lack of discipline in communicating the objectives of the military campaign to the public.”

But there’s no chance in hell they’ve expressed their frustration to Trump.

All of which means Trump isn’t getting the feedback he needs. He remains sealed in his cocoon — wearing the equivalent of my advanced AI hearing aids — oblivious to the dangers he’s creating for you, me, and everyone else.

  • Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

The one thing missing from Trump's Iran war that doomed every unpopular war before it

By Charles Walldorf, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University.

It’s clear that regime change is among the biggest objectives of the U.S. war in Iran.

“I have to be involved in the appointment” of Iran’s next leader, President Donald Trump said on March 5, 2026.

Trump has also said he might put U.S. boots on the ground to get the job done.

Trump now joins a long list of modern U.S. presidents – from Franklin Roosevelt to Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush and Barack Obama – who started wars to either overthrow hostile regimes or support embattled friendly governments abroad.

For all the parallels to history, though, Trump’s Iran war is historically unique in one critically important way: In its early stages, the war is not popular with the American public.

A recent CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans oppose the war — a trend found in poll after poll since the war began.

As an expert on U.S. foreign policy and regime change wars, my research shows that what’s likely generating public opposition to the Iran war today is the absence of a big story with a grand purpose that has bolstered public support for just about every major U.S.-promoted regime change war since 1900. These broad, purpose-filled narratives generate public buy-in to support the costs of war, which are often high in terms of money spent and lives lost when regime change is at stake.

Two historical examples

In the 1930s and 40s, a widely accepted – and largely true – story about the dangers of fascism spreading and democracies falling galvanized national support in the United States to enter and then take on the high costs of fighting in World War II.

Likewise, in the 2000s a dominant narrative about preventing a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and stopping terrorism brought strong initial public support for the war in Afghanistan, with 88 percent support in 2001, and the war in Iraq, with 70 percent support in 2003.

With no comparable narrative around Iran today, Trump and Republicans could face big problems, especially as costs continue to rise.

No anti-Iran narrative

Iran has been a thorn in the side of many American presidents for a long time. So, what’s missing? Why no grand-purpose narrative at the start of this war?

Two things.

First, grand-purpose narratives are rooted in major geopolitical gains by a rival regime — the danger to the U.S. For the anti-fascism narrative, those events were German troops plowing across Europe and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For the anti-terrorism narrative, it was planes crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Gains like these by rivals prove traumatic to the nation. They also dislodge the status quo and provide the opportunity for new grand-purpose narratives with new policy directions to emerge.

Today, most Americans see no existential danger around Iran. A Marist poll from March 3, 2026, found that 55 percent of Americans view Iran as a minor threat or no threat at all. And the number who see Iran as a major threat, 44 percent, is down from 48 percent in July 2025.

By contrast, 64 percent of Americans saw Iraq as a “considerable threat” prior to the 2003 U.S. war in Iraq.

The poll numbers on Iran aren’t surprising. Iran is far from a geopolitical menace to the United States today. To the contrary, it’s been in geopolitical retreat in the Middle East in recent years.

In the summer of 2025, Iran’s nuclear nuclear enrichment facilities were significantly damaged — “completely and totally obliterated,” according to Trump, though there is no confirmation of that claim — during the 12-Day war between Iran and Israel.

And in recent years, Tehran has lost a major ally in Syria and witnessed its proxy network all but collapse. Iran has also faced crippling economic conditions and historic protests at home.

As the polls show, none of that has sparked a grand-purpose narrative.

Missing a good story

The second missing factor for narrative formation today is any strong messaging from the White House.

In the months prior to World War II, Roosevelt used his position of authority as president to give speech after speech, setting the context of the traumatic events of the 1930s, explaining the dangers at hand and outlining a course going forward. Though less truthful in its content, Bush did the same for nearly two years before the Iraq War.

Trump did almost none of this storytelling leading up to the Iran war. Five days before the war started, the president devoted three minutes to Iran in a nearly two-hour State of the Union Address.

Prior to that, he made a comment here and there to the press about Iran, but no storytelling preparing the nation for war. Likewise, since the war began, the administration’s stated reasons for military action keep shifting.

No wonder 54 percent of Americans polled disapprove of Trump’s handling of Iran and 60 percent of Americans say Trump has no clear plan for Iran. Also, 60 percent disapprove of Trump’s handling of foreign policy in general.

By comparison, Americans approved of Bush’s handling of foreign policy by 63 percent in early 2003.

Absent a cohesive, unifying story, it’s also no surprise there is lots of political fracturing today.

Partisan divides run deep — Democrats and independent voters strongly oppose the war. But Trump’s MAGA coalition is cracking too, with people like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene sharply criticizing the war.

The way out

If he opts for it, there is an off-ramp for Trump from the Iran war. It’s one he knows well.

When U.S. leaders get caught up in costly regime change wars that outrun national support, they tend to back down, often with far fewer political costs than if they’d continued their unpopular war.

When the disaster referred to as Black Hawk Down hit in Somalia in 1993, killing 18 U.S. Marines, President Bill Clinton opted to end the mission to topple the warlords that ruled the country. Troops came home six months later.

Likewise, after the Benghazi attack killed four Americans in Libya in 2012, Obama pulled out all U.S. personnel working in Libya on nation-building operations.

And just last year, when Trump realized that U.S. ground troops would be necessary to topple the Houthi militant group in Yemen, he negotiated a ceasefire and ended his air war in that country with no significant political fallout.

With Trump’s Iran war, gas prices keep rising, more soldiers are likely to die, and stocks are highly volatile.

Backing down makes a lot of sense. History confirms that.

Iran called Trump's bluff — and somehow Putin won

Donald Trump suddenly popped on TV screens late Monday, giving his most extensive remarks on the war in Iran and taking questions from the press.

Trump had previously given no public speech to the American people upon the initiation of this war — unlike every American president taking the country to war in the past. His communication to the American public was mostly in the form of videos or speaking by phone to select reporters, offering wildly shifting rationales for the war and its goals.

On Monday, however, he finally came before the White House press corps and repeated what he’d said earlier in the day to CBS, that the war — which he now dubbed a mere “excursion” — is “very complete.” But he also said it would go on, even though it would end “soon,” and said that Pete Hegseth, who earlier said the war is “just the beginning,” is correct, even though Trump himself said that it’s “complete.”

What?

He’s trying to have it all ways in a war that had no planning or an endgame.

The crazy presser perhaps is explained by two things that happened in the hours before it: Trump spoke at length to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Trump saw oil prices surge to $120 a barrel on Sunday, tanking markets around the world and in the U.S. on Monday morning.

Let’s take the latter first. We learned from the tariff upheaval that Trump cannot stomach the markets crashing and particularly the bond market starting to teeter. It’s the only thing that stops him. Corporate America and his billionaire friends and GOP donors wind up shrieking. And average Americans — in this case looking at the price of gasoline — become very attuned to the economy and high prices.

Trump’s earlier statement in the day to CBS, while the markets were open, that the war is “very complete” was meant to calm the markets.

“I think the war is very complete, pretty much,” Trump told CBS. “They have no navy, no communications, they’ve got no Air Force ... Wrapping up is all in my mind.”

And the intended effect worked. The markets began to rebound as the price of oil came down. It actually had been coming down a bit from earlier when Trump promised insurance and military escorts for companies. None of that may actually happen. It’s risky for American military vessels to escort ships in the Strait of Hormuz, which has essentially been brought to a standstill, stranding 20 percent of the world’s oil supply. But the market operates on hope and fear.

Trump knows that. The real economy operates on facts — real data as well as on experiences on the ground by Americans in their jobs and in their consumer spending — but the market operates on hope and fear until that real economy catches up. The market can be temporarily lifted, and Trump lent it a helping hand.

But later, in the presser, after the markets had closed, Trump gave much more mixed signals — the New York Times called it a “zigzag” — saying the war may go on for a while. He even responded to a question about Hegseth, saying it’s “just the beginning” by saying that “both” could be true.

Clearly, Trump still wanted to convey that he had massive leverage over Iran, and that the bombing will continue — which it has. That’s because, in essence, this was all a capitulation to the Iranian regime, which knew the US wouldn’t have the stomach to go on for long.

Trump had only on Friday called for an “unconditional surrender” from Iran and said he’d need a say in who would be its leader, promoting his most extensive thoughts on regime change yet. And Trump absolutely rejected the idea that the son of the former Supreme Leader could be the new Supreme Leader.

But Iran indeed installed as Supreme Leader the son of 86-year-old Ali Khamenei, who was killed in a U.S. strike along with a few dozen other leaders, some of whom were viewed as more moderate by U.S. intelligence and as leaders with whom the U.S. could work. As national security analyst Joe Cirincione, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, told me on my SiriusXM program yesterday, that strike was a strategic blunder — spurred on by Israel — as the U.S. now had no top leaders with whom it could negotiate.

The son, Mojtaba Khamenei, is much more hardline than his father and is only 56 years old. So Trump killed the old man who could likely have been replaced when he died by one among several moderates — all of whom Trump also killed — and now the hardline, young son will be there for a long time.

Iran’s regime defied Trump’s demand — there would be no surrender — and they chose their more extreme leader. And then the markets tanked as oil was cut off. And Trump caved.

So Trump’s bluster at the presser yesterday was his way of trying to make Iran’s brutal government feel afraid of him. But why should they feel afraid? He’d, after all, just melted away. Trump also completely sidestepped a question from a reporter about how the Iranian people — the vast majority of whom support democracy — could feel betrayed by him? Trump had promised them he’d save them, only to now cave and hand them over to a new ayatollah.

Trump’s move to declare victory wasn’t, however, just a response to the market and the billionaire overlords. He’d had a long conversation with Putin earlier in the day as well, a call that Putin initiated, according to reports in the media. We learned in recent days that Putin was continuing to supply Iran with intelligence, which is outrageous since Iran was targeting American soldiers using intelligence from Russia. And yet, both Trump and Hegseth dismissed that, as usual tiptoeing around Putin. And now Trump had a long conversation with Putin.

The conservation, which Trump said was a “good” one, is pretty much shrouded in mystery. But we can put together how it went. Putin had earlier said that the attack would trigger an oil crisis and said oil transport would stop in the Strait of Hormuz. He was, of course, right.

Putin also said that Russia — whose economy is collapsing under sanctions but which is the second-largest oil exporter in the world and has the biggest reserve of natural gas — was happy to once again sell Europe its oil and gas. Europe had stopped importing Russian energy after the Ukraine invasion began.

Putin wanted a long-term deal again. And Trump, we’ve learned, is now considering pulling back on oil sanctions against Russia. He’d already announced a few days ago that he was allowing India to buy oil from Russia, dropping the threatened tariffs if India bought Russian oil, because of the shortage of oil coming from the Gulf.

“We’re also waiving certain oil-related sanctions to reduce prices,” Trump said at the presser yesterday. “So we have sanctions on some countries. We’re going to take those sanctions off until this straightens out.”

So Trump capitulated not only to Iran but to Russia.

Putin now had more leverage on Trump, able to help Trump out in the oil crisis he created. Putin is getting Trump to actually help sell Russian oil, and lift Putin’s devastated economy. The invasion of Ukraine be damned.

Trump may be trying to claim the U.S. has won, but the only winners so far are Putin and, to the extent that they survive even if their military capability is damaged for now, the Iranian regime.

The Iranian people are still living under a horrific, murderous theocracy. Thousands have been killed in Iran and the region, including hundreds of Iranian children killed in a school that analysts have determined was caused by an American Tomahawk missile. Seven American service members lost their lives. And the American people are paying higher gas prices, as the oil shock will last a while.

The Gulf nations suffered casualties because the U.S. didn’t plan for this war, mindbogglingly thinking the war would be over in days and that Iran wouldn’t attack U.S. assets in the Gulf states, while thousands of Americans and people from other countries were stranded in the war zone.

And U.S. credibility took another dive, as Trump weakens this country’s standing in the world by the day.

  • Michelangelo Signorile writes The Signorile Report, a free and reader-supported Substack. If you’ve valued reading The Signorile Report, consider becoming a paid subscriber and supporting independent, ad-free opinion journalism.

This Trump move pushed us to the brink — but there's still a way to put things right

As we reach the 12th day of the war in Iran — with death and destruction rippling throughout the Middle East — it’s important to bear in mind where the real failure of this lies.

So far, at least 2,000 people have been killed, including 175 Iranian schoolchildren, and seven American service members. At least 140 U.S. service members have been wounded, several critically. The final tallies on both sides will almost certainly be far higher.

Soaring oil and gas prices in the U.S. are inevitably hitting the poor and working class much harder than the affluent.

We’re spending huge resources on this war — roughly $1 billion per day, or $41,666,667 per hour, $11,574 per second.

These are resources that could be better spent improving the lives of the American people.

Americans need health care. Affordable housing. Child care and elder care. Better schools. We want our basic needs met. But the government has said we “can’t afford” these things.

Yet supposedly we can afford nearly $1 trillion for the Pentagon. Trump now says the Pentagon needs $500 billion more.

The tragic failure at the center of this devastation is not that most Americans have succumbed to war fever. To the contrary, poll after poll shows that most Americans do not support this war.

In fact, this is the first war America has entered in modern times without a majority in support.

The real failure is that the richest and most powerful nation in the world — the nation that has led the world since World War II and that established the postwar international order emphasizing multilateralism, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law — is now being led by a rogue president who rejects all these values.

One man has decided for himself to make this war. One lone person has initiated this mayhem without gaining Congress’s approval, without getting the approval of allies, without even articulating a clear reason for it.

The lone person who sits in the Oval Office has no endgame for this war, hasn’t given a consistent answer for what “victory” will require, and doesn’t appear to know what he’s doing.

One single individual is now wreaking havoc — lives lost, energy prices soaring, our treasury being emptied, our own needs overlooked, and potential future terrorism unleashed on this and other lands for years to come.

This war marks an overwhelming failure of American democracy. It is ultimately our failure.

What can we do now?

On March 28 — two weeks from this coming Saturday — we march across America in the largest demonstration in the nation’s history.

In coming weeks and months, we harden our elections systems so they cannot be overridden by the despot in the White House.

In November, we turn out the largest numbers ever recorded for a midterm election, to take back leadership of Congress from those who have enabled this rogue president.

Meanwhile, we continue to defend our communities, protect our immigrant friends and neighbors from state violence, and defend our universities and schools, our museums and libraries, and our media and newspapers from state despotism.

The best way for us to respond to the devastation of this war, in other words, is to strengthen the mechanisms that should never have allowed it to occur in the first place.

  • Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org