World

In Feb. 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump blasted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), assuming he'd start World War III. Now, it's Trump that is on board with war after one commentator said Graham led Trump on a leash toward the attacks on Iran.

“He’s one of the dumbest human beings I’ve ever seen… you’ll end up starting World War III with a guy like that," Trump told Fox News.

Writing for Zeteo.com, Prem Thakker alleged that it was Graham who "helped dog-walk him into his disastrous war in Iran — a baseless and illegal conflict that’s pierced the illusion that the president is a dovish exception to the bloodthirsty conservative movement."

Graham has hedged these past few weeks, saying that he wants regime change to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. However, he's also demanded that countries in the region get involved in the effort with the U.S.

“We’re going to blow the hell out of these people,” Graham pledged. “When this regime goes down, we’re going to have a new Mideast,” he fantasized.

He then gave away the game: “We’re going to make a ton of money," he said, explaining that “Venezuela and Iran have 31 percent of the world’s oil reserves.”

Thakker noted that Graham seemed to gleefully brandish a hat reading "Free Cuba," indicating that the president is working his way through the list of nations he appears to want to impact. After his attack on Venezuela, Trump explained that his foreign policy doctrine has been about the Western hemisphere. Then he waged the Iran war.

On Sunday, after Israel bombed several oil facilities, Thakker noted that Graham rushed to Fox cameras to rejoice: “Donald J. Trump saved the world from real chaos… Thank God Trump did this.”

"Graham’s PR role for Trump’s war is all the more interesting given his apparent role in making the war happen," Thakker closed. "The efforts have been as pathetically paternalistic as Graham reportedly playing a word-association game with our man-child president, encouraging him to go to war."

During his first presidency, Donald Trump was a relentless critic of neoconservatives —arguing that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a total disaster. And his America First views, greatly influenced by paleoconservative Patrick Buchanan, were often described as "isolationist."

But Trump, since returning to the White House, has taken a much more interventionist turn — from the capture of former President Nicolás Maduro to pushing for the U.S. to buy Greenland (an idea that European leaders vehemently oppose) to calling for Canada to become "the 51st state." And Trump escalated his interventionism by going to war with Iran.

In an op-ed published by the conservative Washington Examiner on March 8, journalist Timothy P. Carney lays out some reasons why Republicans should proceed with caution when it comes to war.

"If we take conservatism to be a real habit of mind, grounded in insights and a sound anthropology," Carney writes, "then the full weight of conservatism comes down against regime changes and wars of choice…. Overthrowing the current order, even when that order is rife with problems, typically makes things worse. More broadly: Dramatic changes to complex systems always create unintended and unforeseen consequences, and those consequences are often very bad."

Carney continues, "This isn't merely a foreign policy view. This is something the conservative believes so deeply he may not say it out loud. It's why he's skeptical of grand new plans and revolutions, whether cultural, economic, or otherwise. It's not that we live in the best of all possible worlds, it's that we live in a world more complex than we can imagine. Our power of reason is awesome, but humans trying to rearrange civilization are like amateurs tinkering with a home's electrical system — there's a high risk of disaster."

Carney goes on to describe the "lessons" of the United States' "21st Century regime-change wars."

"In Afghanistan," Carney explains, "we very quickly dethroned the Taliban, and then sunk into a 20-year occupation that ended in a humiliating and deadly retreat in 2021….

We spent more than $9 billion to try and end narcotics trade and production in Afghanistan. This was a total failure. By 2018, Afghanistan was supplying more than 90 percent of the world's opium…. The Iraq War, likewise, was quickly declared a success."

Carney continues, "Our military demolished Iraq's, deposed Saddam Hussein, and soon arrested him. For a moment, we were, as the war's champions predicted, greeted as liberators. Mission Accomplished! But then things spiraled way down. The primary premise for the war, that Saddam was about to use 'weapons of mass destruction,' proved false. The government we stood up collapsed. Our efforts to import Madison democracy failed, and in the vacuum, terrorism blossomed and then spread throughout the region. Many experts argue that the war created ISIS, which then brought hell on the region for many years. Domestically, the war became incredibly unpopular, and led to the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 and Barack Obama's election in 2008. Iraq today is one of the worst places on the planet to live."

In addition to his work as a journalist, British reporter Ben Judah is known for his work in the U.K. government — where he served as a special adviser to David Lammy in the Foreign Office. And in an article published by the i Paper in the UK on March 6, Judah recalls his initial reaction after learning that U.S. President Donald Trump had chosen real estate mogul Steve Witkoff as a special envoy to the Middle East.

"Had Trump really appointed some real estate pal of his to wrap up the Gaza War?," Judah remembers. "There was a mixture of shock and scorn in the ranks at how this could possibly have come about. A few old hands predicted his time in diplomacy would be a failure. He'd fail to launch. But Witkoff kept on rising, as the Democrats levelled accusations he sought to enrich himself and the Trump family with fabulous real estate deals in Russia, even Iran, once he'd landed those prize-winning peace deals."

Judah recalls that native New Yorker Witkoff was quite "globalized" when Trump appointed him yet is "very different from a diplomat" in his outlook.

Witkoff, Judah argues, is very much a reflection of the second Trump Administration —which, he warns, is showing a total disregard for diplomacy during its war against Iran.

"The fact is that Trump is not running an administration but a court — where the closeness and confidence of the king is key," Judah laments. "A court where (Israeli Prime Minister) Bibi Netanyahu would turn out to be the greatest courtier. The rise of Witkoff was a story of taking on more and more for the boss. The truth is, in politics, that's not always a good thing. Because when it goes wrong, it's suddenly all on you. There was no grand deal to trumpet for Trump on Fox this week."

Judah continues, "Instead, Witkoff marched through making a series of nuclear justifications that will be pored over by Democrats, historians and journalists like Colin Powell’s at the United Nations on the eve of the Iraq War. Whatever happens now, Witkoff's rise will never end at a Nobel gala night in Oslo. Instead his name will forever be linked to a cataclysmic failure of diplomacy. Then again, maybe it was always thus. No crying in the casino, as they say. One's rise and success can easily turn into catastrophic disaster, with you owning the mess, if you play at the highest stakes on the world stage."

Experts in military law are flagging that there is a huge legal problem that President Donald Trump faces as he heads into another Middle East war.

Reporting Friday, ABC News noted that the White House is running into a problem after it blew up an unarmed Iranian ship that was in international waters off the coast of Sri Lanka, doing naval exercises with India. If the U.S. were at war, the bombing would have been legal, but without declaring war officially, there is a legal question about the move.

Speaking to the press this week, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reiterated that the U.S. is "not" at war and the attack in Iran is a "limited operation."

That's not what Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby said, however.

“I think we’re in a military action at this point. I will leave to Congress and lawyers from the administration, et cetera, to determine," he said.

"The U.S. will come to bitterly regret precedent it has set," said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

Thus far, the "not war" involves more than 12 countries.

Both branches of Congress voted on Thursday on a War Powers declaration that would have put restrictions on Trump to wage a new war. Both failed. However, there still hasn't been congressional approval for Trump to bomb Iran. Under U.S. law, Trump has only 60-90 days to accomplish his goals and withdraw, unless Congress gives him approval.

Jim Lobe, Washington Bureau Chief of the international news agency Inter Press Service, writing for "Responsible Statecraft," warned that it may ultimately be considered a war crime.

It underscores why military experts say that Congress needs to declare war quickly.

Retired Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, a former judge advocate general in the U.S. Air Force, told ABC News as much, noting it's necessary “because this is a war [in which they're] going to go after the Iranian Navy," even when naval assets are outside the Middle East.

“The Iranian Navy is not small, right? It could be in places like outside of Sri Lanka and international water," he added.

If the U.S. declared war, the ship would have been a lawful target, one ex-government lawyer said.

Attacking a ship in international waters without declaring war is "political" and not legal, VanLandingham explained.

"When you're going to have such global implications, that's one of the reasons the founding fathers said Congress gets to decide wars of choice," she said.

"The fundamental legal problems under both U.S. and international law" of the submarine engagement, "relate to the underlying use of force in this war against Iran," said Brian Finucane, who previously served as the attorney-adviser at the State Department from 2011 to 2021.

The State Department is dodging any questions about the ongoing feud between Spain and the U.S. over the use of its military bases.

Speaking to CNN on Thursday, a State Department spokesperson was asked about the back and forth between the two countries, but refused to comment.

A few days ago, Spain announced that President Donald Trump's attacks on Iran violated international law and their agreement for the use of air bases.

“Spanish military bases will not be used for anything that falls outside the agreement with the United States and the United Nations Charter,” said José Manuel Albares, Spain’s foreign minister, in a Sunday interview.

However, on Wednesday, the White House press secretary suggested that Spain had backed away from the assertion.

“With respect to Spain, I think they heard the president’s message yesterday loud and clear, and it’s my understanding, over the past several hours, they’ve agreed to cooperate with the US military,” Karoline Leavitt told reporters.

The foreign minister responded almost immediately, telling Cadena SER radio, “The Spanish government’s position on the war in the Middle East, the bombings in Iran, and the use of our bases has not changed one iota."

“I have absolutely no idea what that could refer to or where it could have come from,” he added.

“I want to make things very clear to the Spanish people. The ‘no to war’ position remains clear and unequivocal,” he also said.

Tommy Pigott was asked, "So what is the reality?"

"Well, military operations, I will refer to the [Defense Department] and the White House. What I can say from the State Department's perspective is what we're doing to help the American people. We're focused 24/7 on that, our highest priority being their safety and security," said Pigott.

President Donald Trump has caused an "aviation quagmire," one former airline executive and founder said about the war in Iran.

While oil executives are freaking out and gas prices are jumping, Trump has another problem with the global travel industry, CNBC reported on Thursday.

Trump's war against Iran hasn't merely stayed within the borders of Iran. In retaliation, Iran has been using drones to launch attacks all over the region, with one drone hitting Azerbaijan's airport. Another drone hit a British air base in Cyprus.

It means that the stability of any planes flying through the region must take one of two routes: south over Saudi Arabia or north over Georgia, FlightRadar shows. But after a drone hit in Azerbaijan, the southern route might be the only option for a while.

Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday that Asian airlines had a 900 percent fare hike as people from all over the world are desperately trying to get out of the area.

PlaneFinder allows observers to search for aircraft by type, including drones. Users can click on the drones to see who owns them. A report on Wednesday from CNN's Natasha Bertrand revealed that Trump administration officials acknowledged during a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill that they have major concerns about Iran's drone program because they haven't been able to intercept all of them, as evidenced by the six dead American soldiers in Kuwait.

A number of corporate drones have been spotted circling Kuwait, Qatar and the U.A.E. for the past several days. It's unclear if they're being used as private security for the countries, however. One Royal Air Force military transport aircraft was spotted over Qatar on Thursday morning.

CNBC spoke to a Zoey Gong, a Chinese medicine food therapist, who was stuck in Paris, trying to get to Shanghai via Dubai via an Emirates flight. She ended up having to pay more than double the price of her original ticket for another flight home.

"She’s one of millions of travelers swept up in war and other conflicts from Iran to Mexico this year, problems that are threatening the global tourism industry that’s worth an estimated $11.7 trillion to the world’s economy," CNBC reported, citing the industry group World Travel & Tourism Council. "It’s showing that people who are far from falling missiles, drone attacks and other geopolitical flashpoints aren’t immune to ripple effects."

More than a million people have been stranded, the report said, with 20,000 flights being grounded after the U.S. and Israel bombed Iran.

“This has spiraled into an aviation quagmire,” complained Henry Harteveldt when speaking to CNBC. He is a former airline executive who founded the travel consulting firm Atmosphere Research Group.

He went on to say that the strikes have caused “the most chaotic event we’ve seen frankly since 9/11 when the U.S. chose to close its airspace. We haven’t seen anything that has had such a long and geographically widespread impact on travel.”

News that U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered military strikes against Iran broke early Saturday morning, February 28, and a few days later, more than 10 countries had been pulled into the conflict in some way. Axios' Herb Scribner described the scope of the war in an article published on March 3, noting that Iran had fired strikes against U.S. installations in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman and other Middle Eastern countries. And while Israel was firing missiles at Iran, the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, Scribner reported, "entered the war on Iran's side, launching missiles and drones at Israel on Monday."

The European Union (EU), according to Scribner, was "pulled into the conflict" when "drones struck the British Royal Air Force base at Akrotiri in Cyprus" and Cyprus Mail reported that the strikes probably came from Hezbollah.

In an article published on March 4, liberal economist Paul Krugman stresses that the conflict is giving Trump a major reality check — as it will certainly have a significant impact on both energy and the economy.

"The bad news comes in two parts," Krugman warns. "First, any hopes that this war might be extremely brief are fading. The Trump Administration may have imagined that decapitating the Iranian government would bring swift regime change, but the Islamic state isn't a government of mere thugs — yes, they're evil thugs, but they're also serious religious fanatics facing what, for them, is an existential threat. And their grip on power isn't that easy to break…. Second, war in the middle of the world's most important oil-producing region — which is also a key source of liquefied natural gas — inevitably has major consequences for energy prices."

Krugman continues, "Once upon a time, U.S. and Israeli air superiority might have contained Iran's ability to harm its neighbors. But in an age in which even third-rate powers have the ability to launch missiles and drones, Iran has a huge stockpile of drones and also has ballistic missiles that are destructive, hard to intercept, and have a 1200-mile range…. The potential targets at risk include key parts of the region's energy infrastructure. Above all, the war threatens tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which is how the bulk of Middle Eastern oil and gas normally reaches world markets. And the risk of Iranian attacks has effectively closed the Strait."

Krugman notes, however, that there is also some "good news" from both an economic standpoint and an energy standpoint.

"Even if oil prices go much higher, to $100 a barrel and beyond," the former New York Times columnist observes, "it won't necessarily trigger an economic crisis. I explained why on Monday: The United States and other advanced nations are far less oil-dependent than they were in the 1970s, when oil shocks did cause major economic disruption."

There’s a “chasm of uncertainty” in the U.S. war actions, one media pundit opines.

Sarah Baxter, director of the Marie Colvin Center for International Reporting, peeled the onion of U.S. war schemes in an opinion piece for The iPaper. She indicated that despite the public bravado of the administration, there’s a lot that’s unknown and unplanned with regards to Iran.

President Donald Trump admitted as much in a CNN interview, Baxter cites.

“We don’t know who the leadership is. We don’t know who they’ll pick. Maybe they’ll get lucky and get someone who knows what they’re doing … We don’t know who is leading the country now. They don’t know who’s leading," Baxter writes.

Trump has attempted to frame the decision to launch the attacks as an end to the 47-year “forever war” started by Iran, Simon Henderson, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near-East Policy, told Baxter.

“The killing of Ayatollah Khamenei led to a feeling of euphoria and ‘we’ve succeeded’. To a certain extent Washington thinks, ‘we’ve won. All we have to do is tidy up,’ but we’re not there yet,” said Henderson “Even if we succeed, there are bound to be clashes and ugliness.”

Not only is the current leadership publicly unknown, but what comes next is also guesswork.

“Bluntly, Iranian exile politics is a mess," Baxter writes. Few Washingtonians have faith in the abilities of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah of Iran, to usher in democracy, as King Juan Carlos I did in post-fascist Spain in 1975. Competing groups vie for influence and accuse others of being spies and stooges.”

All of the uncertainty is likely bleeding over onto Middle East allies.

“Sunni Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, who are quietly supporting the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Shia Iran, are wondering whether Trump can be trusted to stand by them.”

According to Henderson, “they placed their bets on Trump many months ago and hope their bets are still good. But they must be thinking, is he going to succeed or are they going to be left to drift?”

One advantage to the seeming uncertainty is it leaves a wide path to declare victory and go home.

Trump still believes things are on the right track, despite some setbacks. But his optimism isn’t shared right now by those outside the staunch MAGA supporters.

Several important MAGA media figures, such as Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, have criticized the attacks on Iran. The President isn’t concerned with the chatter

“I think that MAGA is Trump — MAGA’s not the other two,” he said.

But the MAGA movement is "experiencing whiplash" after swallowing Trump’s campaign rhetoric about wanting to stop wars, Baxter claims. How long their support lasts remains to be seen.

President Donald Trump made a damning admission by commenting on the war with Iran, and two political reporters illuminated just how careless he has been.

Speaking on Greg Sargent's "New Republic" morning podcast, Zeteo.com's Asawin Suebsaeng noted that during his comments Tuesday, the president speculated on the worst things that could happen. It indicated to them that Trump really hadn't thought through the Iran war.

"I guess, the worst case would be we do this and then somebody takes over who’s as bad as the previous person, right?" Trump asked the audience.

"You’d think he would have thought of that before," said Sargent. "He suggests here that he doesn’t expect that to happen. But it seems to me that what he really revealed here is that he hasn’t even bothered to imagine what additionally could go wrong — badly undermining his case. What did you make of it?"

Suebsaeng agreed that it was the damning admission about the decision to go to war.

"President Trump and the rest of the gang running the federal government right now are going about this with the exact same level of nobility and care and solemn posture that you or I would take while flipping through Hulu trying to find something new to watch," complained Suebsaeng.

What he said the team at Zeto discovered is that each time Trump was given briefings, he was completely uninterested in alternative options. There were plans and scenarios

"These were all things that, if he cared to pay attention, were put in his ear and in front of him over and over again in the weeks or months leading up to this thing," Suebsaeng said. "And you know what? Donald J. Trump said and decided firmly: I’m the decider. I think it’s worth it, f—— all that noise that you’re putting in my ear right now. We’re doing it. Let’s just do it and be legends. And he pulled the trigger on it."

He cited The New York Times reporting that said at least one top general had concerns about the war, and all Trump did was "tune it out — just closed his ears to all of it," Suebsaeng added.

Sargent said that Trump essentially undermined his own case for war by "basically admitting to how poorly thought through the aftermath of this truly is. And then note how he says it’s a good thing that the leadership in Venezuela was left virtually intact. So, does Trump want a change at the top in Iran or not? Does he want regime change or not? This is something they just can’t answer."

Many critics of U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to go to war with Iran are saying that he failed to adequately explain his motivations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted an explanation on Monday, March 2, telling reporters that tensions between Iran and Israel played a key role in the decision — and suggesting that Trump acted because of Israel.

But now, according to The New Republic's Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling, Rubio "ate his own words" and is backtracking and trying to distance himself from his own statement.

"During a visit on Capitol Hill Monday," Houghtaling explains in an article published on March 4, "Rubio suggested that the U.S. jumped to action due to intelligence that indicated Israel was going to strike Iran. U.S. involvement was, according to Rubio, necessary to thwart retaliation against U.S. interests. ... But that was apparently not the pitch that Trump approved. Responding to questions from reporters at the White House the following day, the president rejected any indication that Israel had pushed the White House to act."

On March 3, when a reporter asked Trump, "Did Israel force your hand?," he responded, "No. I might have forced their hand. We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to attack. If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that."

Later that day, Houghtaling notes, Rubio "changed his tune" and sounded "noticeably more stressed" than on the previous day.

A reporter told Rubio, "Yesterday, you told us that Israel was going to strike Iran and that's why we needed to get involved" — to which he defensively responded, "Your statement is false…. This had to happen anyway. The president made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program…. That decision had been made…. That's what I said yesterday."

Scathing reactions poured in across social media on Wednesday morning after Donald Trump's Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, criticized the "fake news media" for covering American casualties in Iran, with one reaction calling the moment "truly rock bottom."

The U.S. has been engaged in a major joint military operation against Iran with Israel since Saturday, launching a barrage of strikes as the specific goals of the campaign continue to be uncertain. As of Wednesday, at least six U.S. service members are confirmed dead as a result of the Iranian military's counterstrikes.

Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a press conference about the operation alongside Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During his remarks, Hegseth lashed out at the press over reports focused on the six American casualties, accusing them of trying to make Trump bad.

"This is what the fake news misses," Hegseth said. "We've taken control of Iran's airspace and waterways without boots on the ground, but when a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it's front page news. I get it, the press only wants to make the president look bad. But try for once to report the reality."

Reactions to this remark, which appeared to minimize the importance of American casualties, were swift, criticizing the secretary for his callousness and his lack of care for the responsibilities of the news media.

"Hegseth says reporting on American casualties is the 'fake news' trying to 'make the president look bad,'" Tommy Vietor, a former Obama administration National Security Council spokesman and "Pod Save America" co-host, wrote in a post to X. "This is truly rock bottom from the most selfish, arrogant, unqualifed Secretary of Defense in US history."

"Just a thought, maybe SecDef shouldn’t jerk himself off on live television at the thought of casualties in war," Angry Staffer, a prominent political accountant run by a former White House staffer, said in their own post. "War isn’t something to be giddy about. Were the most powerful nation on the planet. We’re supposed to be the quiet professionals, not carnival barking morons."

"To say that the deaths of our troops shouldn’t warrant front page news and that it’s only being reported on to make Trump 'look bad' inspires the kind of rage in me that would get me banned from this app," Joanne Carducci, a prominent online political commentator, wrote in her own post X.

"No, Pete Hegseth," Susan McPherson, an author and businesswoman, wrote in a post to BlueSky. "The media’s job is to tell the truth and report on the good, the bad and the ugly."

"Each thing Hegseth says is more insane, lawless and incriminating than the last," David Kaye, a former special rapporteur for the United Nations, wrote in a post to BlueSky about the press conference overall.

Hegseth also drew intense criticism for his overblown descriptions of military strikes in Iran, including his comments about "death and destruction" raining from the sky and the U.S. "playing for keeps."

"He’s like a really bad actor in a 1980's 'B' action movie that went straight to video," Ron Filipkowski, a former federal prosecutor and political commentator, wrote on BlueSky.

"More than 1,000 Iranian civilians have been killed already including 160 [plus] schoolgirls," political consultant Elizabeth Cronise McLaughlin wrote in her own post to BlueSky. "If and when there is a war crimes trial, Hegseth's prosecutors will have a wealth of evidence."

Brig. Gen. Steve Anderson told CNN after the Wednesday morning Pentagon press conference, "somebody's smokin' something."

During his briefing, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was asked how Iran had nuclear weapons when the administration said last year that they obliterated the weapons in the "12-Day War."

Hegseth told reporters that President Donald Trump believed Iran "had no intention of making a deal." He claimed that Iran didn't have nuclear weapons; rather, they "had the intentions" of getting such weapons. This conflicts with Trump's ongoing claims that Iran was at work on nuclear weapons again.

"They can’t do the nuclear… They’ve got to stop with the nuclear," Trump said in January at the World Economic Forum.

“After Midnight Hammer, they were warned to make no future attempts to rebuild their weapons program, and in particular nuclear weapons, yet they continue. They’re starting it all over… One thing is certain: I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon," Trump said during his State of the Union address, mere days before the strikes.

CNN's Natasha Bertrand reported that Trump administration officials acknowledged during a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday that they have major concerns about Iran's drone program because they haven't been able to intercept all of them, as evidenced by the six dead American soldiers in Kuwait.

During the briefing on Wednesday, both Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine agreed that the drones do pose a bigger problem than they anticipated.

The other problem, according to several reports, is that the U.S. is running out of weaponry because the administration has burned through the stockpile so quickly.

It was reported on Tuesday by several outlets that the military lacks the supplies to continue at the current level.

“It’s not panic yet, but the sooner they get here, the better,” a regional source told CNN.

Even the pro-Trump "America First Post" reported that Trump burned through five years of Tomahawk inventory in just three days.

Speaking to CNN after the press conference. Brig. Gen. Steve Anderson pointed to Gen. Caine's comments that they were switching from "stand-off munitions" to "stand-in munitions."

"What he's saying is that we're running out of precision-guided munitions," the retired general said. "That's what he's saying. That we're going to take advantage of our air superiority, our ability to loiter over targets and use other type munitions. In fact, the Secretary of Defense even talked about using dumb bombs, gravity-based bombs, and not laser-guided bombs."

He was asked if Hegseth's claim that the U.S. can outlast Iran was accurate.

"That's not how I see it at all. I mean, you know, it's going to take an awful lot to dig these people out. I mean, what we saw today was essentially the same briefing that was given in 2003 by Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers," said Anderson.

He recalled that when they announced the attack on Iraq, there was also no clear definition of the objectives.

"But what we saw was the Secretary of Defense was a tough, macho guy talking about killing and shamelessly sucking up to the POTUS, but he really wasn't giving any specifics on what the long-term objectives are," Anderson continued. "And I would say that we're going to be in the same situation we were in Iraq. We're going to be able to knock out their defensive capabilities, their offensive capabilities, establish air superiority, but they're going to go underground. These are tough, resilient people. They're going to be able to outlast us."

He cautioned that if anyone thinks the U.S. can "bomb them into submission from the air, somebody's smoking something."

After U.S. President Donald Trump ordered missile strikes against Iran and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — the country's far-right Shiite fundamentalist leader since 1989 — was killed, a long list of other countries were drawn into the conflict. Iran launched retaliatory strikes against U.S. installations in Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia was attacked by Iranian drones.

Meanwhile, Israel and Hezbollah (a pro-Iran Shiite militia in Lebanon) fired missiles at once another. From Riyadh to Beirut to Dubai, the Middle East is on pins and needles.

Trump is claiming that going to war with Iran is necessary from a national security standpoint. But MS NOW's Zeeshan Aleem, in an opinion column published on March 4, argues that Trump's Christian nationalist allies view the conflict as a holy war for evangelical fundamentalist Christianity.

"President Donald Trump can't get his story straight on why he launched a war against Iran," Aleem argues. "But some commanders in the U.S. military are apparently telling service members that they're on a mission to fulfill biblical prophecy. The independent journalist Jonathan Larsen reported that the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has received more than 110 complaints from service members about their commanders' religious gloss on the war on Iran."

Aleem continues, "These complaints, according to Larsen's report, came from every branch of the military, across more than 40 different units, situated in at least 30 military installations…. MRFF President Michael Weinstein told Larsen that the complaints from service members shared a common feature: Commanders are describing the war as 'biblically sanctioned' and 'clearly the undeniable sign of the expeditious approach of the fundamentalist Christian End Times as vividly described in the New Testament Book of Revelation."

Weinstein told Larsen, "Many of their commanders are especially delighted with how graphic this battle will be, zeroing in on how bloody all of this must become in order to fulfill and be in 100 percent accordance with fundamentalist Christian end-of-the-world eschatology."

When military commanders "are reportedly selling American aggression on Iran as a holy war," Aleem warns, it is "deeply alarming."

"Weinstein told Larsen that the complaints violate the Constitution's separation of church and state," Aleem explains. "But regardless of its legality, telling American troops that they're fighting for a Christian god against a Muslim country is medieval madness. It isn't the role of the U.S., per the Constitution, to promote any religion over another. Furthermore, the reported remarks from these commanders is likely to prompt U.S. service members to dehumanize Iran's population, and help set the stage for viciousness in combat and human rights violations. The military is not supposed to be a crusading political-theological movement, but a professional defense force."

President Donald Trump’s hold over his MAGA supporters has truly slipped for the first time, contends Senior Editor Alex Shephard in the New Republic. And a prolonged conflict in the Middle East may lead to a further spiral downward.

So far, the story contends, "right-wing criticism of Trump’s war has mostly come from familiar MAGA cranks like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson. But it could quickly spiral out of control."

"If it does drag on, it will become even less popular, including among Republicans,” Shepard writes. “Facing sustained criticism from the MAGA faithful who rightly see the war as a 'betrayal,' Trump could well spiral into unprecedented territory.”

Trump has always dealt with extreme opposition, and has a history of turning critics around. This time is different, Shephard claims. Previous bold moves — like the assassination of Iranian Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani in 2020 or the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January — weren’t the same as an extended regional war. If Iran proves to be that, Shephard says, that will hang over the presidency.

The potential problems on the horizon are dire. Trump is now historically unpopular and facing a potential midterm massacre.

“But what happens when he is even more unpopular, overseeing a foreign war that’s out of control, and no longer has control of Congress? What happens when the subpoenas and investigations — and yes, impeachments — start? What happens if this becomes a regional war? What happens if U.S. civilians, stranded in a Gulf state, are taken hostage? What happens if U.S. ground forces start aiding one, or several, factions in an Iranian civil war?”

All of that can cause further erosion in Trump’s support.

The President claims “MAGA is Trump,” Shephard writes. “Before too long, that may be pretty much all that MAGA is.”

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will travel to Capitol Hill on Tuesday in an effort to head off a potential “revolt” from lawmakers angered by the Trump administration’s decision to attack Iran without notifying Congress — let alone without seeking its authorization — a move critics say violates the U.S. Constitution.

The House and Senate are set to vote this week on resolutions to put guardrails on President Donald Trump‘s ability to use unilateral military force, Politico reports.

Secretary Rubio on Monday said that “Congress can vote on whatever they want. But there’s no law that requires us” to obtain congressional approval before going to war.

“Look, that is fine if they want to take a war powers vote,” Rubio told reporters. “They can do that. They’ve done that. They’ve done that a bunch of times. But there’s no – people keep saying that we have – there’s no law that requires the President to have done anything with regards to this. To begin with, no presidential administration has ever accepted the War Powers Act as constitutional – not Republican presidents, not Democratic presidents.”

On Tuesday afternoon, Rubio will be joined by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, to brief members of Congress on the President’s military actions in Iran.

Politico adds that “lawmakers on both sides are decrying a lack of details from the administration — including evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S. that would necessitate military action.”

Some prominent Democrats blasted Rubio’s claim that there is no law that requires the administration to obtain congressional approval.

“There is a law,” wrote U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA). “It’s called the frickin Constitution of the United States.”

But Speaker of the House Mike Johnson pushed back on efforts to put guardrails on the President.

“The idea that we would take the ability of our commander in chief … to finish this job, is a frightening prospect to me,” he said.

People are growing increasingly uneasy as President Donald Trump's attacks on Iran are looking more and more like they could be part of a right-wing religious fanatic's fantasy for the apocalyptic.

The Cradle Media's Jonathan Larsen wrote that American soldiers were given a pep-talk about the war in Iran. A U.S. combat-unit commander told them that the attack is part of “God’s divine plan." He said that President Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus” for the specific purpose to ignite Armageddon.

“U.S. Troops Were Told Iran War Is for 'Armageddon,' Return of Jesus Advocacy group reports commanders giving similar messages at more than 30 installations in every branch of the military," Larsen wrote.

The comments come as part of a lawsuit brought by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation; however, it is only one of "110 lawsuits brought in 48 hours from over 40 units across 30 installations," the report said. The complaints came from Christians, a Muslim and a Jewish soldier.

The Christian nationalist theory that Israel has a God-given right to much of the Middle East is one espoused by U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. In a speech at a Christian Zionist church in Jerusalem in December, Huckabee conveyed his " purpose is to convert Israeli Jews to belief in Jesus in order to bring about the End Times," explained Religion Dispatches.

The concept is bad for anyone seeking peace in the Middle East, one 2024 report by Forward explained.

The sect of Christianity that Huckabee believes in holds that if they are able to remove Palestinians from the Holy Land, then Jesus Christ will return. He believes in “dispensational premillennialism,” which Forward describes as a belief that “the Rapture will come,” and deliver all evangelicals to Heaven as Israel is invaded by the armies of the world. It will cause Armageddon and prompt the return of Jesus Christ.

The language is making some fearful that the war waged wasn't really about Iran never obtaining nuclear weapons, which Trump claimed he destroyed last summer. It's a holy war, desperate to force Armageddon.

"Maybe it’s a bad idea to put people in charge of government who are eager for the rapture," lawyer and self-described nerd John Collins commented.

"Love when I'm in the military and my boss is, like, 'Time for Armageddon!'" commented author and journalist Emily St. James.

Writer and former Cato Institute policy analyst Will Wilkinson wrote, "Personally, I don’t think we should bring about Armageddon."

"One thing about the U.S., we definitely do not have insane religious zealots in charge," said Heidi N. Moore, previously of the Wall Street Journal business side.

Writer and elections lawyer at the Cato Institute, Walter Olson, quoted a line from the 1965 song "So Long, Mom (A Song for World War III)" with lyrics by Tom Lehrer: "And this is what he said on/ His way to Armageddon.”

During his second presidency, Donald Trump has taken a much more hawkish and interventionist turn than he favored in the past — from the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to military strikes against Iran first reported early Saturday morning, February 28. The Middle Eastern conflict has escalated well beyond Iran and the United States, with the Iranian military launching strikes against U.S. installations in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and other Middle Eastern countries.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a traditional conservative in an administration dominated by MAGA Republicans, has become of the face of Trump's aggressive foreign policy. And according to Axios reporters Marc Caputo, Barak Ravid and Alex Isenstadt, Rubio's comments on the conflict underscore the divisions among Trump supporters where Israel is concerned.

On Monday, March 2, Rubio told reporters, "We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action (against Iran)…. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces (by the Iranian regime). And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.... And then, we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't act…. Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it. But this had to happen no matter what."

Those comments, the Axios reporters note, "were the first time a Trump official had so explicitly acknowledged Israel as a driving force behind the war — landing at a moment when Americans' public support for Israel has hit historic lows."

According to Caputo, Ravid and Isenstadt, "Rubio's remarks were widely interpreted as making the U.S. look subordinate to Israel's interests. And they inflamed already-angry MAGA elites who had spent the day railing against President Trump's decision to go to war. On their podcasts and social media, frustrated pro-Trump influencers argued the president had become beholden to the military hawks and neocons he explicitly ran against. Anti-Israel voices on the right — as well as openly antisemitic influencers who've clawed toward the mainstream in recent years — claimed vindication."

On his "War Room" vodcast, MAGA Republican Steve Bannon commented, "If we knew Israel would strike and Iran would retaliate against us, where was the coordination? We need a strategic explanation."

On her SiriusXM show, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly said of the Iran conflict, "I've got serious doubts about what we are doing."

But far-right MAGA conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer — a self-described "proud Islamophobe" — is praising Trump's Iran policy.

On X, Loomer tweeted, "Just spoke to President Trump and congratulated him on another successful combat mission eradicating one of the world’s most evil Islamic terrorists! I told President Trump he has made the United States proud as the 47th President ending 47 years of Iranian terror and freeing the Iranian people from 47 years of Islamic oppression. I also told him everyone who loves America and hates terrorism is cheering for him and celebrating today, with the exception of the Woke Reich, Tucker Qatarlson, Thomas Massie, Marjorie Traitor Greene and the communist Democrats. We should all be cheering for America and President Trump today and everyday! He's a hero, and he makes our country proud."

Donald Trump's latest military moves have left staff at the Pentagon feeling "intense and paranoid," with several sources warning the Washington Post that key supplies could be exhausted if matters are not wrapped up swiftly.

Trump on Saturday confirmed that the U.S. would be joining Israel in conducting a major military operation against Iran, despite his past campaign promises about avoiding more costly foreign wars. As of Monday, six U.S. servicemembers had been killed in Iranian counterattacks, while Trump claimed that the operations were ahead of schedule and his officials stressed that the operation would not spiral into a longer conflict.

According to a Monday report from the Washington Post, however, staffers within the Pentagon are feeling extremely stressed about the situation, as Iran engages in a "full retaliation" against the U.S. and Israel, launching "dozens and dozens" of missile and drone counterstrikes.

"The mood here is intense and paranoid," one anonymous Pentagon staffer told the Post.

Trump has claimed that, while things are ahead of schedule, the operations in Iran could last for a couple of weeks to a month, with the possibility of an even longer engagement depending on how things play out. The Pentagon staffers warned, however, that the U.S. military's stockpile of supplies is dwindling and that there are major concerns about things lasting for more than a couple of days.

“There is concern about this lasting more than a few days,” another source told the Post. “I don’t think people have fully absorbed yet, like, what that has done with stockpiles."

The same source explained to the outlet that to stop just one incoming missile, "it often takes two or three air defense interceptors." Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, expressed similar concerns to the Post about the military's resources being "stretched thin."

"At this point, it’s on," Smith said. "It’s not like we can say: ‘Hey, Iran, we’re out of missile defense systems now so we’re going to pause for a moment. Is that okay?’ It will stretch our ability to defend everything that we need to defend."

Reports from last week indicated that Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had expressed similar concerns about the military's stockpile being too depleted to handle a conflict with Iran after so much had been given to Israel and Ukraine in recent years.

The White House was forced to fire back after a prominent conservative influencer and podcaster criticized President Donald Trump‘s various and rapidly-shifting reasons for attacking Iran in a massive and ongoing military exercise that the president and defense chief have called “war.”

Matt Walsh, who hosts his right-wing podcast on The Daily Wire and has four million followers on X, on Monday expressed his confusion with the administration’s talking points.

“So far we’ve heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this was not a regime change war,” he began. “And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to do this because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the US, they also might have been, depending on who you ask. And although we are not fighting this war to free the Iranian people, they are now free, or might be, depending on who seizes power, and we have no idea who that will be.”

“The messaging on this thing is,” he said, “to put it mildly, confused.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to Walsh just hours later, saying that Trump on Saturday had “released a statement laying out clear objectives to the American people for Operation Epic Fury.”

According to Leavitt, they include destroying Iran’s missiles and Navy, ensuring Iran’s proxies cannot destabilize the region or the world, stopping them from making and using IEDs, guaranteeing Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, and preventing the Iranian regime from threatening America.

“Simply put,” she wrote, “the terrorist Iranian regime would not say yes to peace.”

“For 47 years, the Iranian regime has actively and intentionally facilitated the killing of Americans while chanting ‘death to America’ and funding other bloodthirsty terrorists seeking to destroy the United States and all of Western Civilization. Prior American leaders were too weak and cowardly to do anything about it. Now, President Donald J. Trump is correcting decades of cowardice and holding those responsible for the deaths of Americans accountable.”

But Politico’s White House bureau chief Dasha Burns noted that Walsh “is among many right wing voices questioning the administration’s actions in Iran.”

“I have heard repeated warnings from Republican sources that the WH needs to do more to get MAGA on side,” she added.

Sean Davis, co-founder of the right-wing website The Federalist, reposted Walsh’s remarks and shared similar ones of his own.

“Is the goal to eliminate the Iranian regime or free the Iranian people or degrade their nuclear capability or degrade the conventional weapons capability or eliminate their regional hegemony or to cut off their oil supply to China or to help Israel or what?” Davis asked. “The lack of any coherent message seems to suggest the lack of any coherent objective.”

Former Trump ally and former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who months ago broke with Trump, wrote: “And just like that we are no longer a nation divided by left and right, we are now a nation divided be those who want to fight wars for Israel and those who just want peace and to be able to afford their bills and health insurance.”