Retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Steve Anderson said that it's clear to him that President Donald Trump appears intent on full-fledged war in Iran.

Speaking to CNN on Wednesday, Anderson said that sending 1,000 troops to the Middle East tells him that "they're serious about conducting some kind of a ground operation in Iran."

"Why else would you be sending the immediate ready brigade from the 82nd airborne?" he asked. "And of course, that would be a tremendous logistics operation. I mean, it would probably take 22 hours or so to actually deploy over there to some sort of a staging area."

He explained they would likely be housed in Qatar and "have a couple squadrons of C-130s in order to conduct some kind of an air assault into Kharg Island or one of the other islands in the Strait of Hormuz."

There are also two Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU) en route, with one that may already be "at the mouth of the Persian Gulf." MEU's are described by the Marine website as a kind of rapid-reaction force of roughly "2,200 Marines and Sailors."

"But, you know, this tells me that they're very serious about conducting ground operations," he continued. "And all I can say is, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you're going to love Iran."

Brown University's Washington School of International and Public Affairs charted the full cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, showing that 7,052 U.S. soldiers died in the wars, 21 Defense Department civilians also died, along with 8,189 U.S. contractors, 680 journalists or media workers, and 892 humanitarian aid workers were killed in the wars that took place from 2001 to 2024. It doesn't count the civilian death count, which is somewhere between 363,939 and 387,072. In economic terms, it will ultimately cost the U.S. about $8 trillion, including veterans' care, over the next 30 years.

Thus far, Trump has already asked Congress for an additional $200 billion to fund the war. This does not include the over $12.7 billion the U.S. spent in the first six days of the war, The Guardian outlined last week.

National security analyst David Sanger, who also serves as the correspondent for the New York Times, reported Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud is pushing the U.S. to go "all-in" and "defeat the Iranians."

During a congressional hearing on Tuesday, U.S. Army Gen. Dan Caine — chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were grilled by lawmakers about President Donald Trump handling of the Iran war. According to the New York Times' Greg Jaffe, military experts are worried about Caine leaving determination of the war's "center of gravity" to Trump.

Jaffe notes that the term "center of gravity" is "rooted in U.S. military doctrine and the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, who defined it as the enemy's primary source of strength."

"In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, as the United States sought to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, Gen. Colin Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, defined the center of gravity as Iraq's elite Republican Guard troops," Jaffe explains. "Twenty years later, as the Obama Administration was struggling to carry out a new strategy in Afghanistan, Adm. Mike Mullen, also the chairman, defined it as building an Afghan government that had the support of its citizens."

Caine, according to Jaffe, declined to "define" the "center of gravity in the Iran war" when questioned by Sen. Gary Peters (D-Michigan).

"Some of his reticence is a product of working for Mr. Trump, who has sought to preserve his negotiating flexibility by not locking his administration into binding war aims beyond ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon," Jaffe reports. "Mr. Trump's mercurial nature — his willingness to change his mind on an almost daily basis — also puts military leaders in a difficult spot. To speak publicly about war strategy risks being countermanded by the commander in chief. Mr. Peters, a (U.S.) Navy veteran, offered his own diagnosis: The center of gravity, he said, was the Strait of Hormuz through which about 20 percent of the world's oil supply flows."

Jaffe points out that although a Joint Chief of Staffs chairman like Caine is "obliged to stay out of the political fray inflamed by the war in Iran," he "works for a president who demands absolute loyalty."

According to Jaffe, "some military analysts" interviewed by the Times "praised Gen. Caine's approach," while "others said he was ceding too much ground."

Retired U.S. Army Col. Heidi Urben told the Times, "When military leaders only talk about tactics, it reinforces this fallacy within the ranks that they don't need to worry about strategy, that other people will take care of that stuff."

The broadcast journalist who stood up to CBS News' increasingly pro-MAGA bias is now speaking out about his views on President Donald Trump and the First Amendment.

Speaking with The New York Times in an interview released on Sunday, Pelley was asked about Trump referring to him as part of a gang of "stupid, crooked people that don’t care about your country."

"Stupid? I can, I can take that," Pelley said. "Stiff? Yeah, probably. Don’t care about the country? I’ve never worn the uniform, but I’ve been in combat for this country, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Kuwait. Been shot at. Spent nights in foxholes filling up with water in the desert. I’m not aware that the President of the United States has ever done any of those things for his country. Please correct me if I’m wrong."

Pelley added, "You become a journalist because you love the First Amendment. You become a journalist because you love the country. And while all the other descriptions, that the president used about me might be applicable. Not that one. There is no democracy without journalism. It can’t be done. And that is why I am a journalist."

When asked about the future of CBS News in the aftermath of his departure, Pelley said that he hopes it will prompt Larry and David Ellison, the two pro-Trump CEOs of Paramount, to reevaluate their gutting of the venerable news network.

"My hope is that the leadership of Paramount will say to themselves, 'OK, this isn’t working,'" Pelley told The New York Times. "We have respected journalists saying that there is a thumb on the scale for one political party over another. And there’s a subtle political bias that I’ve never seen at '60 Minutes' before or at CBS News before. We can save this. It’s possible to land this plane, but right now, CBS News, in my view, is on fire."

Pelley is not alone in worrying that the Ellisons are kowtowing to Trump at the expense of CBS News' integrity. Earlier this month Steve Schmidt, an ex-GOP presidential adviser who worked for President George W. Bush, echoed those arguments.

"There are many words that can be used to describe 60 Minutes: Venerable. August. Excellent. Important. Beloved,” Schmidt wrote. “But since the purchase of CBS News by the Ellison family, another word belongs on the list: Sabotaged.”

Schmidt added that the program has been “assaulted with malicious intent by new corporate leadership that appears determined to gut one of the last remaining institutions in American journalism in order to satisfy a corrupt political arrangement with Donald Trump.”

He continued, “The destruction isn’t accidental. It’s deliberate. It’s strategic. It’s ideological. It’s transactional.” Instead of being a serious program where facts and credibility were valued, it has instead started to pride itself on pleasing the president.

“That is what is being destroyed for no reason beyond the insatiability of Trump’s ego," Schmidt concluded.

President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insist that they are making the U.S. Armed Forces more efficient by stamping out "woke" policies at the Pentagon and restoring what Hegseth calls a "warrior culture." But military insiders, according to CNN, fear that they are making the military dangerously unstable during wartime by firing experienced leaders.

CNN reporters Haley Britzky and Zachary Cohen point to the firing of Gen. Randy George, former U.S. Army chief of staff, in early April as a prime example of why insiders are worried. George brought many years of experience to the table, but Hegseth fired him before the general even had a chance to meet with the defense secretary and make his case.

"Hegseth has fired more than two dozen senior officers, pushed out a Navy secretary he clashed with, and reportedly intervened in promotions across the military branches directly shaping leadership," Britzky and Cohen report in a CNN article. "While the timing of George's firing was abrupt and unexpected, occurring while Army Secretary Dan Driscoll was out of town and catching senior Army leaders off guard, the firing itself was not. It was the culmination of months of tension between Hegseth and senior Army staff, and George in particular. Hegseth and other close Trump allies had been skeptical about George from the beginning, partially because George served as an aide to former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin during the Biden years. The apolitical military assignment was one of several posts in a long career, which included commanding troops during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, that put George in a position to develop extensive relationships with lawmakers."

The CNN journalists add, "The firings and restricted access have been a cornerstone of Hegseth's tenure, though sources told CNN it is not limited to the secretary's office. The culture has permeated other offices in the Pentagon, creating a culture of infighting among some senior civilian leaders."

A Pentagon insider, interviewed on condition of anonymity, warned that under Hegseth's leadership, the Pentagon is suffering from "a lack of clear internal processes" that is "caused by mass paranoia."

The official told CNN, "Everything is a case-by-case basis because there's no delegation. There's no trust. And if there's no delegation or trust, policy decisions can't be made…. They act like we are the enemy."

The Pentagon official said of Hegseth, "He just has this deep-seeded distrust of the Army."

But despite all the unease at the Pentagon, Britzky and Cohen note, Trump is happy with Hegseth's performance as defense secretary.

"In his public appearances," according to the CNN reporters, "Hegseth often speaks directly to camera, and by extension, to Trump in a way the president likes, sources have told CNN. The president has thus far not shown a willingness to break with his defense secretary despite the drama simmering across the river. 'Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, central casting,' Trump said at a recent Cabinet hearing as Hegseth sat to his left. 'He loves war.'"

President Donald Trump withdrew 5,000 soldiers from Germany earlier this month, and now allies are confused by the flip-flops about withdrawing soldiers from Poland.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and defense officials were confused as Trump decided to send in 5,000 soldiers into Poland when he'd just decided to withdraw 5,000 other soldiers, ABC News reported on Friday.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is on hand at the NATO summit this week, meeting with counterparts and explaining

“It is confusing indeed, and not always easy to navigate,” Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard told reporters.

“We just spent the better part of two weeks reacting to the first announcement. We don’t know what this means either,” one of two officials told reporters anonymously.

For the past several weeks, it is as if Trump has forgotten or changed his mind about the goals and aims of his administration when it comes to the U.S. military footprint in Europe. There have been conflicting statements as Trump announced that he intended to draw down soldiers even more than the initial withdrawal from Germany, the Associated Press said.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz caused a stir at the end of April when he said that the United States was being "humiliated" in Iran.

"The problem with conflicts like these is always the same: it's not just about getting in; you also have to get out. We saw that all too painfully in Afghanistan, for 20 years. We saw it in Iraq," said Merz.

It was then that Trump announced the troop withdrawal.

U.S. Lt. Gen. Alex Grynkewich, promised on Wednesday, "We’re going to stay well-synchronized with our allies moving forward."

The U.S. has about 80,000 soldiers stationed in Europe and the Pentagon is required by NATO rules to keep 76,000 soldiers there along with major equipment. The drawdown could only happen with consultation with allies. Ahead of Trump taking office, Congress passed a measure that protected the alliance by requiring that the U.S. not withdraw from NATO without congressional approval.

"The president's view is, frankly, disappointment at some of our NATO allies and their response to our operations in the Middle East," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Friday.

Writing for Carnegie Europe, Rym Momtaz alleged this week, "Trump has transformed the alliance from an instrument of deterrence against Russia into an instrument of coercion against Europe."

He called it "pernicious and dangerous."

U.S. President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are vowing to purge the military of "wokeness" and restore what Hegseth calls a "warrior ethos." But retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling — who served as commander of U.S. Army Europe under former President Barack Obama and is a frequent critic of the second Trump Administration's policies — has a very different view of patriotism. In an article for the conservative website The Bulwark, Hertling looks back on his years of combat and explains why Memorial Day is "deeply personal" to him.

"For those who have attended memorial ceremonies on dusty airfields in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even still Vietnam, or who escorted transfer cases draped in flags, or who listened to bagpipes while rifles stood inverted beside combat boots and helmets under a fading sunset," explains Hertling, a frequent military analyst for MS NOW. "Memorial Day is not abstract patriotism. It is deeply personal."

Hertling continues, "Years ago, during combat operations in Iraq, our 1st Armored Division commander — then-Major General Martin Dempsey — was struggling with something every commander eventually confronts in war. What do you say to soldiers grieving the loss of a close friend who was struck in the prime of his or her life? How do you comfort young men and women carrying the weight of death while still asking them to continue the mission the next morning — or even that same night?"

The former U.S. Army Europe commander notes that Memorial Day didn't become an "official federal holiday" in the United States until 1971, although it existed more than 100 years before that.

Memorial Day started in the late 1860s, honoring Union soldiers who died in the American Civil War.

"Long before it became a three-day weekend," Hertling writes, "it was a day of mourning. And for many who have worn the uniform, it still is…. There is something veterans often struggle to explain to civilians without sounding exclusionary: the bond formed in combat. Most veterans do not believe they are better than those who did not serve. In fact, most deeply respect Americans who contribute to society in countless other ways. But there is something uniquely intimate about serving beside others in dangerous places."

Hertling continues, "It emerges from shared fear, shared exhaustion, shared discomfort, shared responsibility, and shared grief. It comes from understanding that your life may depend entirely on the competence and courage of the person beside you — and theirs on yours. You remember absurd humor in terrible places and exhaustion so deep it became numbness. You remember who shared water, who carried the heavier weapons, who cracked jokes when morale collapsed, and who checked on others first after contact. And you remember who never came home."

U.S. President Donald Trump is defending his war against Iran as a matter of national security and claiming that he prevented the regime in Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. But according to a column by Bloomberg News' Andreas Kluth, Trump's war is making one of the United States' most dangerous allies even more of a threat: North Korea.

"For decades, during which American presidents have sloppily lumped its dictatorship with other bogeys in the Middle East as part of woolly 'axes of evil' and such, North Korea has arguably been the greatest threat to the United States and its treaty allies South Korea and Japan," explains Kluth, known for his heavy focus on national security and geopolitics. "And each time the U.S. threw its military might against those other targets — Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran — Pyongyang, under successive generations of the Kim dynasty, became more convinced that the only way to forestall an American attack would be to have its own nukes. And not just a few, but enough to overwhelm America's missile defenses."

Kluth warns that Kim Jong Un, North Korea's communist dictator, "has an arsenal that is impressive in the most diabolical way."

"He has an estimated 50 atomic warheads and enough enriched uranium to build 50 more," Kluth notes. "North Korea also produces enough fissile material to keep adding about 20 warheads a year indefinitely. It appears to aim at minimum for parity with nuclear powers such as France or Britain, which each have over 200. Kim's weapons range from relatively 'small' tactical nukes, equivalent to the Hiroshima blast, say, that he could use in battle against South Korea to huge thermonuclear bombs that could take out entire American cities…. By contrast, Iran had no nukes when the U.S. attacked it, either last June or this February. Nor was Tehran actively seeking to build any, according to U.S. intelligence assessments."

Kluth interviewed U.S. State Department veteran Joel Wit, who said that Kim Jong Un is "probably happy" with current events in the Middle East.

"The ill-advised American war against Iran thus appears to have made the problem of North Korea worse," according to Kluth. "A dictator who already felt stronger than he was in Trump's first term now wields more diplomatic clout and military power, even as he has reason to be even more paranoid about the potentially lethal unpredictability of his counterpart in the White House. Kim Jong Un is more dangerous than he has ever been, and the United States appears unable to do anything about it."