Posts Tagged ‘trump’

Netanyahu Boasts of Efforts To Convince US To Launch War Against Iran

September 1, 2026

The Israeli leader credited his frequent appearances on US television networks and his ‘intimate knowledge’ of US leaders

by Dave DeCamp | August 31, 2026 at 5:49 pm ET | Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has boasted of his efforts to convince the US to launch a war against Iran, crediting his frequent appearances on US television networks and his “intimate knowledge” of US leaders.

Netanyahu made the comments Sunday night on Israel’s Channel 14, and a clip of his appearance was posted on X by the account Clash Report, which Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later shared.

The Israeli leader said that he had been against Iran for “nearly 40 years” and that it took him a long time to get the Israeli security establishment and the US on board.

“It took a long time to bring the US in,” he said, according to Channel 14. “I was able to do this because I had close to a thousand hours on American television, influence in the United States, and intimate knowledge of all its leaders – both those who support us and those who do not.”

The New York Times reported in April that 17 days before the US and Israel launched the war on February 28, Netanyahu presented President Trump with an intelligence briefing at the White House and made a “hard sell” for the war. The report said that Netanyahu had been “pressing for months” for the US to agree to a major attack on the Islamic Republic.

Sources told the Times that during the briefing, Netanyahu made a series of predictions about the potential war that proved to be wrong, including the idea that Iran was ripe for regime change, that its ballistic missile program could be destroyed within weeks, that it would be too weak to close the Strait of Hormuz, and that Iran’s missile strikes on US interests in regional countries would be minimal.

Responding to Netanyahu’s comments about his influence on the US, Aragchi said that the Israeli leader was openly bragging about how he “suckered” the US into the war.

“In Hebrew, Netanyahu openly crows that he suckered the US Administration into a war on Iran on behalf of Israel. Netanyahu explicitly laughs about how he ‘influenced’ America through 1,000 hours of airtime on US networks,” the Iranian diplomat wrote on X. “In English, he praises POTUS’ leadership. Serpent.”

If you liked this article, please support Antiwar.com.
We are 100% reader-supported.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

‘One Big Military Theft’: Trump Announces Deal for US Control of Venezuelan Oil Fields

August 30, 2026

Trump shakes hands with Woods following Venezuelan invasion.

US President Donald Trump shakes hands with ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, during a meeting with US oil companies executives in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC on January 9, 2026.

(Photo by Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images)

“This is proof Trump put our service members at risk to get Venezuelan oil for his billionaire buddies,” one Democratic senator said. “Putting our soldiers’ lives on the line for private profit is a gross dereliction of his constitutional duty.”

Olivia Rosane, Common Dreams, Aug 29, 2026

President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social on Friday that his government had “secured majority US control” of Venezuelan oil reserves containing 65 billion barrels of oil.

The announcement followed on reporting from Axios that a deal was in the works, prompting criticisms that such a move would be “colonial” and calls for Congress to reject any such proposal.

RECOMMENDED…

Oil Tanker anchored in Venezuela

‘Yet Another Trump Grift’: Congress Called to Stop US Takeover of Venezuelan Oil Fields

President Donald Trump

‘Menace to the World’: With Iran Talks Stalled, Trump Vows to Declare Strait of Hormuz a US Territory

“Let’s be clear: This isn’t a win,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote on social media in response to the announcement. “This is proof Trump put our service members at risk to get Venezuelan oil for his billionaire buddies. Putting our soldiers’ lives on the line for private profit is a gross dereliction of his constitutional duty.”

When US forces invaded Caracas and kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife First Combatant Cilia Fores on January 3, Trump’s own words following the invasion confirmed suspicions that he acted largely to gain access to the country’s oil.

“These are some of the largest crimes of our lifetimes.”

“We’re going to get the oil flowing the way it should be,” he said in a press conference following the attack.

Friday’s deal, which seems like an attempt to make good on that promise, was also announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez, who provided more details.

According to Venezuelanalysis:

Rodríguez stated that the deal will involve private corporations developing 17 “strategic fields” with 65 billion barrels of proven reserves. She echoed Rubio’s $100 billion investment claim and pledged that the projects would yield $209 billion in tax revenues. According to the acting president, the announced agreement “ushers in a new era of growth and prosperity.”

However, economist Francisco Rodríguez, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, argued that the agreement was actually a bad deal for Venezuelans.

“President: According to your figures, this agreement will generate tax revenues of just $3.22 per barrel of Venezuelan oil. This represents 4.7% of the current price, and less than half of the royalty rate contemplated in concessions granted by Juan Vicente Gómez,” he wrote on social media, addressing the current Venezuelan leader and referring to a Venezuelan dictator from the early 20th century.

Joseph Bouchard, a journalist and researcher who focuses on Latin America, agreed with Rodriguez’s criticism of the deal, writing on social media that “Trump [was] ‘generously’ buying billions of barrels of Venezuelan oil at less than 5% its market price. He’s stealing their oil for his own family and cronies’ profit. Guessing this may be used as a chip to manipulate the midterms. These are some of the largest crimes of our lifetimes.”

Francisco Rodriguez had earlier pointed out that the deal violated the Venezuelan Constitution, which holds that all minerals and hydrocarbons are “inalienable public domain,” according to Venezuelanalysis. For the deal to go through, therefore, Venezula would have to alter its Constitution.

Former head of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth noted on social media that “senior Venezuelan officials, all fearing arrest, are hardly in a position to negotiate vigorously, making the whole thing seems like one big military theft.”

Trump is under pressure to lower gas prices that have spiked due to the fallout of his war on Iran, which entered its sixth month on Friday, and promised in his announcement, “This Historic Transaction MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves, greatly increases our Oil Supply, and will substantially lower Gas Prices for all Americans, long into the future.”

However, The Associated Press pointed out: “A significant drop in US gas prices tied to the agreement should not be expected immediately. Experts have repeatedly warned that a substantial boost in Venezuelan oil production will not happen quickly as repairing and expanding infrastructure takes years and requires billions of dollars.”

Exploiting Venezuela’s oil reserves would also exacerbate the climate crisis, which just this summer intensified a deadly heatwave in Europe and is supercharging an El Niño that could contribute to a significant increase in food prices in 2026 and 2027.

An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder


Dear Common Dreams reader,

It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits.

It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do.

Many people said we wouldn’t last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong.

Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.

Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work.

But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever.

We don’t accept corporate advertising and never will. We don’t have a paywall because we don’t think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you.

When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we.
Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives?

—Craig Brown, Co-founder
about:blank

about:blank

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Olivia Rosane

Olivia Rosane is the opinion editor and a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

Hamas must not concede in talks what Israel failed to win on the battlefield

August 29, 2026

Sami Al-Arian

MME, 28 August 2026

As pressure mounts to disarm and incorporate it into a reconstructed Palestinian order, the movement needs strategic patience to preserve its independence and resistance identity

Hamas fighters secure the area as Egyptian workers and Red Cross officials search for the remains of the last Israeli captive, in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City, on 8 December 2025

Hamas fighters secure the area as Egyptian workers and Red Cross officials search for the remains of the last Israeli captive, in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City, on 8 December 2025 (Omar al-Qattaa/AFP)

Some moments in the history of liberation movements require courage to act; others require equal courage to wait.

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, on 7 October 2023, was a daring decision that shattered assumptions that had governed the Palestinian question for years.

It brought Palestine back to the centre of world politics, exposed the illusion that it could be managed or bypassed, and confronted Israel and its western supporters with a conflict they had convinced themselves could be contained indefinitely.

Nothing that followed can justify transferring responsibility for Gaza’s destruction from those who destroyed it to those who resisted them.

Responsibility for the devastation of Gaza, the killing of its civilians and the ruin of its homes, hospitals, universities and schools belongs to those who carried it out. Criticism of Palestinian strategy must never become a mechanism for absolving the perpetrators and their supporters.

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch

Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

The scale of that sacrifice demands a harder look at how it is being managed politically.

Hamas today faces perhaps the most difficult transition in its history. The movement that entered Al-Aqsa Flood as an armed resistance organisation now confronts enormous pressure to emerge from the war disarmed, removed from governing Gaza, integrated into a reconstructed Palestinian political system and dependent upon arrangements designed principally by the US and Israel with the tacit support of regional mediators.

Tactical flexibility is indispensable to any resistance movement, but it must serve a coherent strategy rather than gradually displace it.

Four developments should concern anyone who believes the resistance must preserve its independence: the political trajectory signalled by Hamas’s 2017 document, the handling of postwar negotiations, the mounting pressure for disarmament and the movement’s re-engagement with its old Fatah-aligned rivals.

A political wager

Hamas’s 2017 Document of General Principles and Policies, issued well before Al-Aqsa Flood, was widely understood as an effort to present a more pragmatic face to the world. It accepted a sovereign Palestinian state along the 4 June 1967 lines as a formula of national consensus, while refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the Zionist state and maintaining the right of resistance.

The position had a long pedigree. As early as 2009, Khaled Meshaal, then the head of Hamas’s political bureau, told the New York Times that his group “had accepted a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return [of Palestinian refugees] based on a long-term truce”.

The document represented a political wager: that moderation would break the movement’s isolation and open doors in Europe and beyond.

Hamas should study Fatah’s experience and refuse ever to surrender a strategic position in exchange for a promise of future reciprocity

European figures discussed whether it justified engagement. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair after leaving his post as the envoy for the Middle East Quartet – which includes the US, EU, UN and Russia – courted Hamas’s leadership, and later acknowledged that the boycott imposed after the movement won the 2006 elections had been a mistake. Yet the broader political opening never came.

Therein lies the lesson: a liberation movement should distinguish between flexibility exchanged for concrete political gains and concessions offered in anticipation of western acceptance. The real danger is a process in which each concession becomes the starting point for the next.

Fatah travelled down that road decades earlier, with each concession presented as the gateway to the next diplomatic breakthrough: recognition was to produce reciprocity, negotiation to deliver statehood and security cooperation to build confidence, while Oslo itself was supposed to be transitional.

Instead, the transitional became permanent as settlements expanded, the occupation deepened and sovereignty receded, leaving Fatah today a shadow of its past.

Hamas should study that experience and refuse ever to surrender a strategic position in exchange for a promise of future reciprocity. Western approval is not a Palestinian national objective.

Squandered leverage

The second concern is more immediate. Negotiations are a contest over interests conducted through bargaining power, yet since the war entered its diplomatic phase, Hamas has repeatedly appeared willing to relinquish leverage before securing reciprocal, enforceable gains.

The release of the Israeli-American soldier Edan Alexander in May 2025 was presented as a goodwill gesture intended to reopen diplomatic space, but goodwill has value in negotiation only when the other side treats it as something to reciprocate.

The larger test came with US President Donald Trump‘s Gaza initiative in September 2025. In its initial response, Hamas agreed to release the Israeli captives, living and dead, under the exchange formula, and accepted the transfer of Gaza’s administration to an independent Palestinian technocratic body.

As the world fixates on Hamas, who will disarm the Israeli settlers storming West Bank villages?

Read More »

On the broader future of Gaza and fundamental Palestinian rights, however, it insisted that such questions belonged within a comprehensive national framework.

I had argued for precisely this approach days before the movement issued its response on 3 October 2025.

Once the captives were exchanged and that undertaking fulfilled, Hamas should have considered stepping back from direct negotiation over the larger questions, since a resistance leadership does not have to conduct every negotiation itself.

It could have entrusted the bargaining to experienced independent Palestinian negotiators versed in international law, diplomacy, American politics, Israeli negotiating practice, maps and security arrangements, while itself defining the objectives and the red lines.

One of the tragedies of the Palestinian negotiating experience since the 1980s has been the repeated confusion of revolutionary legitimacy with negotiating competence, which was among Fatah’s costliest mistakes under Yasser Arafat.

The record of Oslo makes the asymmetry plain. Israel fielded specialised teams, serving generals and the seasoned foreign ministry lawyer Joel Singer; as Mahmoud Abbas himself later acknowledged, the Palestinians were negotiating against “an experienced, capable delegation” without comparable expertise of their own. Negotiation is a profession, and recognising that a movement lacks it costs far less than pretending otherwise.


Follow Middle East Eye’s coverage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza


The Vietnamese understood this well. Throughout the long Paris talks, Hanoi treated diplomacy as one instrument within a larger political and military strategy: the Politburo set the objectives and the permissible concessions, while veteran negotiators such as Le Duc Tho conducted the bargaining.

When the talks moved beyond positions the leadership was prepared to accept, the negotiators were instructed to return to the earlier agreement as the basis for settlement. The art lay in knowing what could be traded, what had to be preserved and when compromise served the wider goal.

More than weapons

These questions have become urgent because Hamas has moved from discussing governance to entertaining formulas concerning its weapons.

Recent proposals would see them stored or transferred as part of a demilitarisation arrangement tied to Israeli withdrawal, an approach Israel has rejected while insisting on complete disarmament first. Are Palestinians really expected to hand over their weapons while the tanks are still at the border?

The pattern is familiar from the Oslo years: a Palestinian concession enters the diplomatic record, Israel rejects the arrangement as insufficient, and the next negotiation begins from the concession rather than from the position that preceded it. The reward for an unreciprocated concession is usually another demand.

Disarmament therefore goes to the identity and strategic purpose of the movement itself. Restraint can itself be a form of resistance, and Hamas need not return to governing Gaza: relinquishing direct administration might even free the movement from the contradiction between governing a besieged population and functioning as a resistance organisation. Leaving government and abandoning resistance are entirely different propositions.

The greater danger is that a movement exhausted by war and subjected to extraordinary pressure from mediators and international powers could be transformed, incrementally, into merely another Palestinian faction seeking a place in an electoral order whose parameters others have designed.

Fatah’s transformation came about exactly that way. A concession was justified as tactical, another was required to preserve the political process, and another was demanded to demonstrate seriousness, until an organisation established to liberate Palestine became the governing component of an authority operating under occupation.

The movement’s re-engagement with its old rivals in Fatah’s orbit belongs to the same set of concerns. In August, Hamas met officials from the Democratic Reform bloc of the former Gaza security chief Mohammed Dahlan, in contacts a Hamas official confirmed to Al Jazeera, ahead of Palestinian legislative elections scheduled for November.

Weeks earlier, a senior aide had said that Dahlan intervened in the disarmament negotiations through direct contacts with the US president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Political circumstances change, and old adversaries meet. Yet Hamas should ask what purpose these returns are designed to serve, and why the very powers now pressing for its disarmament appear so comfortable with them.

Strategic patience

Defenders of the present course will ask what the alternative is, and the answer is strategic patience: a movement under immense pressure does not have to resolve every question immediately. Hamas can fulfil the limited agreements it has made while declining to negotiate away questions that belong to the Palestinian people as a whole, using the intervening period to reorganise while the environment becomes clearer.

The region has changed since 2023 in ways in which the consequences are still unfolding. A growing number of analysts argue that the confrontation involving Iran, Israel and the US may leave Tehran strategically stronger than many anticipated. Washington and Tel Aviv, meanwhile, have expended enormous military, political and diplomatic capital.

Gaza itself remains under a fragile ceasefire, with the sequencing of Israeli withdrawal and disarmament unresolved. Why should Hamas negotiate as though today’s balance of power were permanent?

There is a time to fight, a time to negotiate and a time simply to hold one’s position

Elections are a legitimate instrument of popular representation, and Palestinian institutions desperately need renewal after years of stagnation and eroded democratic legitimacy. Taking part in them is one thing; allowing them to redefine the movement’s relationship to resistance is another. Hamas needs to state clearly what it now considers its strategic constants, and how armed, popular, political, legal and diplomatic forms of resistance fit within them. Such questions cannot be answered through piecemeal agreements negotiated under pressure.

There is a time to fight, a time to negotiate and a time simply to hold one’s position, which is sometimes nothing more than the refusal to make irreversible concessions under temporary pressure.

Al-Aqsa Flood came at an almost unimaginable human cost to Gaza, and that cost must never be used to delegitimise Palestinian resistance or shift responsibility from those who devastated the Strip. Neither does the magnitude of Palestinian sacrifice exempt Palestinian leaders from strategic accountability: a resistance movement has to protect the political value of the sacrifices made in the name of its cause.

Hamas can leave the government of Gaza, contest elections under the right conditions and negotiate when circumstances require, without allowing tactical concessions made under extraordinary pressure to redefine its principles. Where its own negotiating capacity is inadequate, it should have the confidence to entrust the bargaining to professionals while retaining the authority to set the red lines.

The gravest danger facing Hamas now lies beyond the battlefield. Having survived one of the most destructive wars in modern history, it could gradually concede at the negotiating table what its adversaries failed to attain by force.

What Israel could not extinguish through military might and genocide should not be surrendered through the fine print of an agreement concocted in Washington.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Sami Al-Arian is the Director of the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA) at Istanbul Zaim University. Originally from Palestine, he lived in the US for four decades (1975-2015) where he was a tenured academic, prominent speaker and human rights activist before relocating to Turkey. He is the author of several studies and books. He can be contacted at: nolandsman1948@gmail.com.

Hegseth: Honor Lindsey Graham by Giving Pentagon $1.5 Trillion

August 11, 2026

Key federal officials attended the renaming ceremony for Joint Base Lindsey Graham

Key federal officials attended the renaming ceremony for Joint Base Lindsey Graham in South Carolina on August 10, 2026.

(Photo by DOW Rapid Response/X.com)

“Lindsey himself said to me, in his office, ‘This is the best military budget I’ve seen since I’ve been in Congress,’” the Pentagon chief claimed.

Jessica Corbet, Common Dreams, Aug 10, 2026

Aug 10, 2026

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “can’t persuade Republicans to back his big budget,” but that didn’t stop him from pushing the $1.5 trillion proposal during a Monday event to rename Joint Base Charleston after the late Sen. Lindsey Graham.

When Graham, who served in the Air Force, unexpectedly died last month, critics remembered the South Carolina Republican as someone who “never met a war he didn’t want to send your kids to,” as well as “a bloodthirsty bastard who cheered the killing of Muslims and sold his soul to the fascists.”

RECOMMENDED…

Hegseth Is Demanding US Households Pay $5,000 More Per Year to Fund the Pentagon, Economist Says

Hegseth Is Demanding US Households Pay $5,000 More Per Year to Fund the Pentagon, Economist Says

Sen. Sanders Holds Press Conference On Arms Sales To Israel Ahead Of Wednesday's Vote

Senators Block $1.15 Trillion Pentagon Bill Over Trump’s Illegal Iran War, Israel Integration

On Monday, Hegseth—who deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq—fondly recalled meeting with Graham while part of the group Vets for Freedom. Joined at the base by the senator’s replacement, his sister Darline Graham, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is from South Carolina, the Pentagon chief declared that “it falls to us to complete the work that Lindsey Graham began and advocated for for decades.”

“As we gather here today, the War Department is seeking a historic, generational investment of $1.5 trillion for America’s warriors, and Lindsey himself said to me, in his office, ‘This is the best military budget I’ve seen since I’ve been in Congress,’” Hegseth claimed, using President Donald Trump’s preferred name for the Department of Defense.

“This department pays tribute to Lindsey Graham in the naming of this base, but there could be no greater tribute than for Congress to give and invest in our warriors for the full $1.5 trillion,” he added.

The GOP narrowly controls both chambers of Congress, but as Politico reported just hours before the event, “Hegseth hasn’t persuaded Republicans to steamroll Democrats and advance the record-breaking plan, despite regularly trekking to the Hill in recent weeks and hobnobbing with lawmakers. Instead, an increasingly vocal group of GOP lawmakers argue the administration hasn’t explained why Republicans should burn valuable political capital in pursuit of Trump’s vision—especially with the midterms just months away.”

“Several top Republicans are skeptical about the Trump administration’s two-track approach to clinching $1.5 trillion. This relies on the GOP using the partisan reconciliation process—which allows the majority to bypass Democrats entirely—to provide $350 billion, the bulk of the increase,” the outlet detailed. The Republican majority “has—mostly—had Hegseth’s back” since the battle to confirm him, despite widely condemned bombings of boats allegedly trafficking drugs on the high seas and the ongoing war on Iran.

Hegseth on Monday shared some supposed details from his last meeting with Graham, who chaired the Senate Budget Committee.

“Mr. Secretary, what do you need for a reconciliation?” Graham said, according to Hegseth. “I said: ‘Well, in total, sir, we’re going to need $350 billion for our military. That’s what we believe gets us to $1.5 trillion—$115 [billion] in the base budget, $350 [billion] in reconciliation, and we’ll be ready.’”

“He looked at me and said, ‘How’s $355 [billion] sound to you?’ He wanted to give even more than $350 [billion],” Hegseth continued. “I saw firsthand as a young first lieutenant, as a captain in a combat zone, and as a secretary, the unwavering commitment of Lindsey Graham.”

Hegseth’s recounting of their meeting isn’t the first time Graham’s pro-war ideology has been highlighted since he died. As Common Dreams reported late last month, footage filmed for a documentary that was in the works shows the then-senator joyfully reacting to Trump’s Iran War. He said: “I almost cried. I mean, like, how long have we been pushing this?”

Responding to the release of that footage, Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, said that “the warmonger got his wish and the result has been a catastrophe.”

Marco ‘McCarthy’ Rubio: Wrong on Cuba & ‘Terrorism’

August 10, 2026

Consortium News, August 10, 2026

Those who challenge and protest U.S. policies are not foreign-paid terrorists; Rubio and other Trump appointees are using “McCarthy” tactics to stop dissent, says Ann Wright.

Downtown Minneapolis ICE-out demonstration on Jan. 23 following ICE agent Jonathan Ross’ fatal shooting of civilian Renée Good. (Lorie Shaull /Flickr/ Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY 4.0)

By Ann Wright

Thin-skinned and heavy-handed, the Trump administration apparently feels like it is being singled out by those who dissent from its policies. As a result, Trump appointees are taking drastic “McCarthy” tactics to stop dissent.

In less than one month, alleging that dissent and protests are part of attempts of other governments “to overthrow the government of the United States,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio has sponsored two major initiatives to frighten those who oppose the Trump administration’s policies.

The first salvo was orchestrating a conference with 60 countries participating over “Threats From Left-Wing Terrorists.” The second was the report on Cuba that alleged virtually every group that has ever visited Cuba is paid by the Cuban government.

If You Are Not Outraged, You Aren’t Watching

These allegations of paid protest and travelling on the dime of another country are unfounded, untrue, and fly in the face of the history of protests in the U.S. and travel by U.S. citizens to see the effects of U.S. polices on other countries.

President Donald Trump’s erratic foreign policy, including the disastrous attacks on Iran as a favor to Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli war machine; attacks domestically cutting health and education; horrific treatment of migrants; daily outlandish statements on just about every subject; and disregard for facts in virtually every issue all provide good reasons for protests by outraged U.S. citizens.

I have not been paid by any country to protest U.S. policies, nor do I know anyone who has been paid.

No one needs to be paid to be outraged!!!

Dissent Is Not Illegal, Nor Paid by Other Countries

Sen. Joe McCarthy, center, confers with Roy Cohn, chief counsel for House Un-American Activities Committee, Aug. 23, 1953. (Los Angeles Times/Wikimedia Commons)

In particular, Secretary of State and National Security adviser Marco Rubio, who has authored the latest “McCarthy” report to quell opposition to illegal, immoral policies of his department and the Trump administration in general, seems to have lost his grasp on the history of dissent in the U.S.

From his 15 years in the U.S. Senate, he should remember that many of each administration’s domestic and international policies have been lawfully and non-violently protested by U.S. citizens in the U.S. Congress.

Having been a part of many protests since I resigned from the State Department in March 2003 in opposition to a war policy, President George W. Bush’s war on Iraq, I know that these protests are NOT a part of attempts of other governments to “overthrow the government of the United States,” but are legitimate shows of concern about specific policies.

Rubio’s allegations of other countries’ influence in these protests are unfounded and untrue.

I was not paid by a foreign government to resign. I resigned because I felt the war on Iraq was illegal, immoral, and a dangerous action jeopardizing the national security of the United States.

I have not been paid by any country to protest U.S. policies, nor do I know anyone who has been paid. Protest is a legitimate, time-consuming act of outrage about a policy that people use to bring attention to the policy, and hopefully effect change in the policy.

Rubio: Blame the Left, Ignore Right’s Violent Attack

The first attack against legitimate protest came in the U.S. Department of State sponsored conference on “Far-Left Terrorism” held in Washington, D,C,. in July, where Rubio and White House pit bull Stephen Miller harangued the representatives of 66 nations about terrorists from the left wanting to overthrow the U.S. government.

In his opening statement Rubio railed:

“This is a distinctive and unique evil. It has always been driven by a hatred above all else, a hatred for civilization itself. It is a revolt of the worst against the best, a revolt of the weak and the cowardly against the strong and the good.”

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Miller called left-wing extremism a growing threat aimed at “the overthrow of our system and form of government” that officials previously failed to sufficiently address. Miller railed:

“We must stay the course and be completely unflinching in the pursuit of justice against these enemies of civilization. If the left is allowed to use the real or actual threat of violence to destabilize our institutions, then those institutions cannot and will not succeed.”

White House press release stated,

“Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, far-left extremism will be treated with the same seriousness and ferocity the world has long reserved for jihadist terrorism.”

Of course, neither Rubio nor Miller mentioned President Trump’s pardon of the over 1,500 persons who did try to violently overthrow the United States electoral process on Jan. 6, 2021 as they attacked the Capitol police and broke into and destroyed many offices in the U.S. Capitol.

The attempted overthrow of the 2020 election by seeking to nullify the election results through lawsuits in 62 federal and state courts was attempted by Trump’s loyal personal lawyers including the current acting U.S. attorney general and head of the U.S. Department of Justice Todd Blanche, and disgraced and disbarred lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Their cases of election fraud were stopped by rulings in all 62 federal and state lawsuits that no election fraud had occurred.

Untruthful Report About Cuba & Paid Protesters

Prisoners of the C.I.A,-backed Brigade 2506, after they were captured in the Bay of Pigs invasion, 1961. (Miguel Vinas / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain)

The most recent and most ludicrous allegations of left-wing violence and protests being funded by other countries is in Secretary of Rubio’s 10- page report on “Cuba: the Capital of 21st Century Communism.”

Rubio accuses the National Network on Cuba, National Lawyers Guild, CODEPINK: Women for Peace, the People’s Forum, IFCO/Pastors for Peace, and the Democratic Socialists of America of being paid by the Cuban government whose goal, the report states, has been for 60 years the overthrow of the U.S. government.

Talk about turning the facts on their heads. As is well-documented, 13 successive U.S. presidential administrations since 1959 — Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama (first term, when C.I.A. policies were still in effect, but changing in Obama’s second term with diplomatic recognition), Trump 1, Biden, and Trump 2 — have attempted to overthrow the Cuban government in the 60-plus years of its existence.

The current attempt of overthrow is centered on the U.S. brutal and total blockade of fuel going to Cuba, which has left Cuban citizens without electricity for operations in hospitals, for food preparation, and for the conduct of normal life.

Making life so miserable for the Cuban citizenry that they overthrow their government would fulfill the longstanding hopes of Cuban-American Rubio.

Rubio Dishonest About Cuban American Background

Marco Rubio has been less than forthright about his heritage as a Cuban American in his quest for the overthrow of the Cuban government.

Rubio, “Mr. Righteous against birthright citizenship,” is a “birthright citizen” born in the U.S. of noncitizen parents who had immigrated in 1956 from Cuba under the Batista dictatorship, not under the 1959 revolutionary government.

Rubio, “Mr. Tough on illegal immigrants,” ignores that his own grandfather entered the U.S. illegally and was ordered to be deported but was saved from deportation by an amnesty during the Cuban missile crisis.

Rubio, “Mr. Kill the Boat Drug Runners of the Caribbean,” disregards that his own brother-in-law was convicted of drug running and his sister implicated but never charged.

Rubio, “Mr. I Know All About Cuba Because I Am Cuban American,” has been to Cuba only once — where in Cuba did he go? A few hours at the U.S. prison on the U.S. Naval base at Guantánamo.

No doubt, more will come in the next two years as Rubio, Miller, and others in the administration seem to think they can get away with outrageous bullying of individuals and organizations that do not agree with them and that challenge them in non-violent ways, in contrast to the Jan. 6 gang.

In particular, there are always protests against the horrific effects of brutal sanctions that the U.S. government uses to make life so difficult for citizens of other countries that they will overthrow their own governments, whether it be Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, or Nicaragua.

Israel’s Paid Influence Seems OK With Rubio

 Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivering joint statements in Jerusalem on Feb. 16, 2025. (State Department/ Freddie Everett)

However, Rubio must be thinking that since his buddies in the Netanyahu government have paid Trump’s former campaign manager, Brad Parscale, millions of dollars in a specific program to influence U.S. public opinion to stop the massive decline in Israel’s “likability,” that other countries have paid off U.S. persons to work clandestinely on the same scale.

Parscale’s firm was hired by Israel for $6 million in September 2025 and then signed a $15 million contract with Israeli firm Havas to conduct a digital campaign on behalf of the State of Israel, according to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Parscale and his team sent conservative influencers suggested positive language about Israel for posts on social media sites such as X, Instagram, and TikTok. The influencers are then compensated based on how many “likes” each post gets from readers.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government has dramatically increased spending on influence operations. Earlier this year, Israel increased by four times its “public diplomacy” influence budget from $150 million in 2025 to $730 million in 2026.

But even The Times of Israel says it’s too late for a “face lift” as a Pew Research Center poll reported that 60 percent of Americans now view Israel unfavorably, up seven points in a single year, with only 37 percent viewing it favorably after Israel has committed genocide of Palestinians in Gaza; pillaged and plundered homes, farms, animals in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian West Bank; destroyed southern Lebanon; and got the Trump administration up to its neck in the war on Iran.

Keep Challenging Illegal, Immoral & Criminal Policies

The two recent major attempts of the Trump administration to quell dissent show how serious challenging illegal, immoral, and criminal policies has become and how important it is that we push back hard against these attempts to intimidate citizens to silence their dissent.

Despite these brutal, heavy-handed attempts, dissent is spreading to regular citizens. In a recent letter to the editor of my hometown newspaper Honolulu Star Advertiser, which serves a large U.S. military population, a resident of Hawaii summarized the challenge very well:

“The true domestic enemy includes those who monopolize political and economic power. The real enemy includes individuals who misinform, threaten, and disenfranchise the less powerful. The true enemy are those who are antidemocratic, have little or no concern regarding the welfare of others, and enrich themselves, family, and a few friends at the expense of the general population.”

Ann Wright served in the U.S. Army/Army Reserves for 29 years and retired as a colonel. She was also a U.S. diplomat for 16 years and served in U.S. embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia.  She is the co-author of Dissent: Voices of Conscience.  She has been with the Gaza Freedom Flotilla Coalition since 2010, has been put in Israeli prison twice for attempting to break the illegal Israeli naval blockade on Gaza and has been on segments of flotillas in 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2024.

As Trump Shows ‘Desperation,’ Iran Says Strait of Hormuz Will Not Open ‘Until America Corrects Its Behavior’

August 10, 2026

    Trump-targeting banner displayed in Tehran's Azadi Square

    A banner depicting US President Donald Trump and bearing messages was displayed in front of the Zolfaghar and Zolghadr ballistic missiles exhibited at Azadi Square in Tehran, Iran’s capital, on August 2, 2026.

    (Photo by Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images)

    As it becomes clear that there is “no escalatory military path out of this war,” Iran is demanding an even steeper toll for Trump to pull out.

    Stephen Prager, Common Dreams, Aug 09, 2026

    President Donald Trump is now quietly conceding that he’s willing to walk away from his Iran war without meeting all of his demands if they agree to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. But Iran won’t let him back out of the quagmire without a steep price.

    Iran is in the process of negotiating a limited reopening of the critical waterway with Oman. But Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said on Saturday that “until America corrects its behavior, the Strait of Hormuz will not open.”

    RECOMMENDED…

    Ships sail near the Strait of Hormuz off the eastern coast of the United Arab Emirates

    Trump Revives Iran Blockade, Demands 20% Toll for US ‘Guarding’ Strait of Hormuz

    Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held a meeting in Tehran

    Iranian Foreign Minister: Trump ‘Absolutely Right’ About Guarding Strait of Hormuz—But Iran Will Charge ‘Fair’ Price

    He outlined a list of demands on Saturday, even harsher than those Trump walked away from when he abandoned the “memorandum of understanding” negotiated in June.

    Zolghadr said the US must permanently end its war and naval blockade against Iran, and withdraw military forces from the region. He also said the US must fully compensate Iran for damages from the war, lift sanctions, and unfreeze assets abroad.

    This demand for an end to US “aggression” applies not just to Iran, but to its allies in the region: Zolghadr also demanded an end to Israel’s attacks on Palestinians and a withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, as well as an end to US and Israeli attacks against the Houthis in Yemen.

    The Trump administration, which is not known to be in direct talks with Iran, has not yet responded to the demands. Trump told Axios on Sunday that “We are low-keying it” and “only semi-negotiating with Iran,” claiming that it was “in very bad shape” economically.

    It’s clear, however, that the Iranians believe they have enough of an upper hand to make Trump grovel, especially as news emerges that the US has burned through nearly all its available stocks of long-range precision weapons, making the war increasingly costly, though the administration has denied this.

    Domestic concerns are also weighing on Trump. Over the past month, as the war heated up again, average gas prices in the US have shot back up above $4 a gallon, a major liability for Republicans heading into a midterm election cycle in which many voters say the cost of living is a top concern.

    Approval of Trump among Americans has fallen to a new all-time low of 34% according to a YouGov poll late last month. And just 28% of Americans say they approve of his handling of the war, according to an Associated Press/NORC poll.

    As the Wall Street Journal reported, Trump has privately signaled a willingness to declare victory if Iran opens the strait, even without getting any sort of nuclear agreement, which was purportedly the reason he launched the war in the first place.

    Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said Trump was “showing his desperation for a deal before it is completed, so Iran predictably demand[ed] major new concessions,” adding that it was a “masterclass in how not to negotiate.”

    “As time passes, Tehran appears increasingly confident that the pressure is shifting onto Washington,” said the Israeli national security analyst Danny Citrinowicz. “Iranian leaders seem to believe that the United States is now more eager than Iran to bring the confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz to an end, and, crucially, that Washington has few attractive military options for changing that equation.”

    Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told CNN, “At this point, it is absolutely clear that there is no escalatory military path out of this war.”

    “It’s been tried in several different variations, and it has not ended up particularly well,” Parsi said. “In fact, the US’s position has been weakened, in my view, by additional military action. And as a result, I think there needs to be a full dedication to the diplomatic pathway.”

    He added that for the Iranians, “the promise and the credibility of sanctions relief will carry far more weight than threats of further bombings.”

    Pentagon Drafting New Nuclear Strategy To Expand Options for Tactical Nuclear Weapons Use

    August 10, 2026

    The strategy is being overseen by Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief, who has long called for the US to prepare to fight a “limited nuclear war”

    by Dave DeCamp, Antiwar. com, August 9, 2026

    The Pentagon is reportedly drafting a new nuclear strategy that’s expected to emphasize the use of tactical nuclear weapons to give the president more “options” in a potential nuclear conflict.

    The strategy, first reported by NBC News, is being drafted by the Pentagon’s policy chief, Elbridge Colby, who has for more than a decade called for the US to develop additional capabilities to fight a “limited nuclear war.”

    The idea would be to shift the US nuclear strategy away from the focus on using strategic nuclear weapons to wipe out an adversary’s nuclear capabilities and focus more on the possibility of using smaller, tactical nuclear weapons in a “regional” conflict.

    Elbridge Colby, undersecretary of defense for policy, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, DC, on March 3, 2026. (Photo by Craig Hudson/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect)

    “If you actually want extended deterrence to be credible, you have to provide the nation’s political leadership with nuclear capabilities that common sense indicates you could actually use,” a source told NBC. “Otherwise you’re reducing our leadership’s options to extreme choices that the adversary won’t find credible.”

    While the potential strategy would be carried out in the name of deterrence and preventing war, arms control advocates have strongly warned against the idea of developing more tactical nuclear weapons to prepare for a potential limited nuclear conflict over concerns that it would make nuclear war much more likely and that any nuclear exchange would likely lead to a global catastrophe.

    “Without a firm rejection of the option to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict, by building and fielding more tactical nuclear weapons the administration is signaling its intention to use them against enemy forces and industrial infrastructure in a conflict,” the Arms Control Association said in response to the NBC report.

    The ACA said that it “strongly opposes the administration’s decision to build more tactical nuclear weapons to supplement the options that exist” and pointed to the fact that the US already has at least two types of tactical nuclear weapons, including B61-12 gravity bombs, which are deployed in Europe, and the W76-2 low-yield warhead for the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile.

    The ACA said the US Navy is also “acquiring a new nuclear-capable sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) that may be available at the end of the decade for possible use in conflict with China.”

    Breaking Defense reported that Colby announced on August 5 that the Pentagon was reviewing the US nuclear posture and repeatedly emphasized the term “options” in a speech he delivered that has not been made public.

    Colby has been one of the leading voices in Washington’s policy circles advocating for the US to prepare for limited nuclear war. In a 2015 paper for the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) titled “A Nuclear Strategy and Posture for 2030,” Colby said the US “should make a special effort to develop the platforms and weapons, doctrine, planning capacity, and other capabilities needed to fight a limited nuclear war more effectively than plausible adversaries.”

    He said that the ideal US nuclear force is “one that is not only highly survivable and able to issue a devastating blow against any adversary under any scenario but that is also capable of conducting effective limited nuclear operations in a controlled fashion while maintaining the ability to escalate to full-scale war if necessary.”

    Colby made a similar argument in a 2018 piece written in Foreign Affairs titled “If You Want Peace, Prepare for Nuclear War,” published just a few months after he left the first Trump administration, where he led the development of the 2018 National Defense Strategy.

    “Washington’s task is clear. It must demonstrate to Moscow and Beijing that any attempt to use force against US friends and allies would likely fail and would certainly result in costs and risks well out of proportion to whatever they might gain,” Colby wrote. “This requires conventional military power, but it also means having the right strategy and weapons to fight a limited nuclear war and come out on top.”

    𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐰𝐚𝐫.𝐜𝐨𝐦’𝐬 𝐅𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐓𝐨 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚

    August 5, 2026

    by John Mearsheimer, Antiwar. COM, Aug 5, 2026

    The U.S. government continues to demonstrate its knack for pursuing remarkably foolish foreign policies that have terrible consequences.

    Many thought that President Trump was going to rectify this problem, at least somewhat. After all, he promised to shut down the Ukraine War as soon as he moved into the White House, if not before he did! Moreover, he said no more forever wars, no more wars in pursuit of regime change.

    But Trump has failed. Not only did he fail to end the fighting in Ukraine, but he has also twice gone to war against Iran – the 12-Day War in June 2025 and the disastrous war that he and Benjamin Netanyahu started on February 28, 2026, which could be the greatest strategic blunder In U.S. history. Furthermore, he kidnapped Venezuela’s president and, by his own account, is running that country as if it is an American colony, not a sovereign state. And like his predecessor in the White House, President Joe Biden, he is complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its endless pogroms in the West Bank.

    How did we end up in this dreadful situation? And how can we rectify it?

    There is no guaranteed way to avoid foreign policy errors. But one way to minimize the chance of getting into serious trouble is to debate the issues of the day openly, so that critics of conventional wisdom or particular government policies can have their say. Media institutions are hugely important in fostering this kind of debate, which is why freedom of the press is protected in the United States. It allows critics to make their views known to large numbers of people and it provides legitimacy. Critics of existing policy are not always right, but sometimes they speak truth to power and help us avoid or correct big mistakes.

    As almost every reader of Antiwar.com knows, the mainstream media in the United States have become much less willing to provide dissenters with a platform since the Cold War ended. Mainstream media outlets often seem to speak with one voice on the big foreign policy issues of the day and that voice usually backs U.S. government policy. This situation is not healthy, and it helps explains why America’s standing in the world has declined in recent decades.

    Antiwar.com plays an enormously important role in filling this dangerous void in our public discourse. It provides an indispensable platform for critics to challenge the reigning views of the foreign policy establishment. This is essential for increasing the likelihood that the United States will pursue wiser policies. For this reason, I urge readers to generously support Antiwar.com. In these troubled times, a flourishing Antiwar.com is very much in the U.S. national interest.

    If you liked this article, please support Antiwar.com.
    We are 100% reader-supported.

    John J. Mearsheimer, PhD, is an American professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. More recently Mearsheimer has attracted attention for co-authoring and publishing the article The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which was subsequently published as a book.

    Expert: Trump’s Trying to Exert Control With Claim He Canceled Iran Strikes Over Progress on Deal

    August 3, 2026

    IRAN-US-ISRAEL-WAR

    A bridge that was hit and heavily damaged by a US strike is pictured along the road connecting Roudan and Bandar Abbas in southern Iran on July 18, 2026.

    (Photo by Amir Hossein KHORGOOEI/ISNA/AFP via Getty Images)

    “It’s a narrative designed to give the impression that Trump is in the driving seat in this conflict. It’s been clear for some time now: He isn’t.”

    Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams, Aug 01, 2026

    Trita Parsi, an expert on US-Iranian relations, cast doubt on President Donald Trump’s Saturday claims that he halted planned strikes on Iran due to progress in negotiations to end the illegal conflict, launched by the Republican and Israel in February.

    “The U.S.A. is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II. Despite this, we have just been asked by Iran, and other Middle Eastern Countries, to hold off any attack in that the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform at 10:05 pm Eastern time.

    RECOMMENDED…

    Donald Trump and Mark Rutte

    ‘I Don’t Want to Deal With Them’: Trump Declares Iran Truce Over as US Resumes Bombing

    Senators Sanders And Lee Discuss Bill To Abolish Super PAC's

    ‘End This War’: Progressives in Congress Blast Trump’s Return to Bombing Iran

    “This would include the Immediate, Complete, and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT, and an end to Iran’s nuclear threat,” Trump declared—despite repeated conclusions from US intelligence agencies that the Iranian government was not aiming to build a nuclear weapon when the United States and Israel began bombing Iran five months ago.

    “Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL,” Trump added. “The Country of Israel joins me in this commitment. Get to work, everybody, and get it DONE.”

    Sharing the post on the platform X, Parsi said, “Trump ‘cancels’ ‘planned’ ‘attack’ on Iran…” The expert struck a similarly skeptical tone during a Saturday on-air interview with CNN about the president’s announcement.

    Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that “I don’t believe there was an imminent attack. We’ve gone through this several times, in which Trump issues these threats, and then he backs off because the other side calls his bluff.”

    “Trump does not have an escalatory way out of this conflict, but what he is trying to do is to give the impression that he is in control—that he is in the driving seat,” Parsi suggested. “And I think it’s been quite clear for quite some time now he is not.”

    During Trump’s first term, he tore up the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear deal, and so far, he has been unable to negotiate a replacement. Since launching this war, without authorization from Congress and in violation of the United Nations Charter, the ceasefire agreement reached in April and a June memorandum of understanding ultimately have not stopped the bloodshed.

    Earlier this week, most US Senate Republicans and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) blocked yet another war powers resolution intended to prevent the Trump administration from launching further attacks on Iran without congressional approval—a vote that came as polling showed 64% of Americans disapprove of continuing the war, including 37% of Republicans.

    The Iran War has killed thousands of Iranians and Lebanese civilians—the latter mostly from Israeli attacks purportedly targeting Hezbollah—as well as hundreds of people in other nations across the Middle East and at least 18 US service members.

    In the hours before Trump’s Saturday Truth Social post, Axios revealed that “Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Trump spoke on Saturday, with MBS expressing concern over the strike plans,” and “other regional powers, including Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Pakistan, have also pressed the US and Iran to de-escalate.”

    CBS chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan reported on social media about Saturday’s “flurry of phone calls by Iran’s top diplomat Abbas Araghchi to regional leaders, which suggests an effort underway to avoid military strikes.”

    “Earlier today, the State Department advised Americans throughout the Mideast to leave the region,” Brennan noted.

    Araghchi said Saturday that “any hostile action by the US or Israel—or participation or cooperation by regional countries in such actions—would be met with a decisive and proportionate response from Iran’s powerful armed forces.”

    At Lindsey Graham’s funeral, Trump hails a senator who “never saw a war he didn’t like”

    July 30, 2026
    Patrick Martina, WSWS, 29 July 202

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, left, gestures as President Donald Trump speaks with reporters while in flight on Air Force One, Jan. 4, 2026, as they were returning to Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. [AP Photo/Alex Brandon]

    The official funeral of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, held Tuesday at the National Cathedral in Washington D.C., was a spectacle of reaction that underscores certain fundamental truths about American and world politics.

    First, American imperialism is irrevocably committed to a global policy of militarism, seeking to use its military power in a desperate effort to maintain its dominant world position despite decades of economic decline.

    Graham was one of the most persistent and aggressive supporters of American military operations around the world, summed up in Trump’s statement, in the course of his tribute to Graham, that “he was truly hawkish; he never saw a war he didn’t like.”

    This was not an offhand or joking remark, as Trump read out an obviously scripted tribute, filled with mawkish language crafted by his speechwriters. Trump praised Graham’s record in the Senate, pushing through record military spending, huge tax cuts for the wealthy and the Supreme Court nomination of reactionary Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But his main focus was on Graham’s advocacy of the use of American military power.

    Second, on the twin fronts of Ukraine and Iran, American imperialism is in the initial stages of a world war targeting not only Russia and Iran but ultimately China, perceived by all factions of the US ruling elite as its most dangerous economic and military rival. The merging of these two fronts was signaled this week by the Ukrainian attack on an Iranian cargo vessel in the Caspian Sea.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky justified the attack by describing Iran as an active participant in the war between Ukraine and Russia, because it has supplied Russia with combat drones. By that logic, every NATO country could be targeted by Moscow for air strikes, since they have sent the weapons and supplies used by Ukraine to bomb Russian oil refineries, military installations and urban centers.

    Both Zelensky and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Washington to attend Graham’s funeral. Each met separately with Trump on Tuesday morning before the ceremony, making their pitches for stepped-up US military support for the US-NATO war against Russia and the US-Israeli war against Iran.

    Third, the most reactionary forces in American society are being mobilized behind the program of war abroad and dictatorship at home. Trump was followed to the rostrum of the funeral service by Sean Hannity, the fascist commentator from Fox News; Tony Perkins, president of the fundamentalist Family Research Council; Marjorie Dannenfelser, head of the fanatical anti-abortion group Pro-Life America; and evangelical minister Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham.

    The entire ceremony was saturated with fundamentalist Christian religion, not only in the remarks of the speakers and the reading of Bible verses, but in the emphasis on Lindsey Graham’s personal adherence to “scripture,” as Trump put it, another unfamiliar word put in his mouth by speechwriters. It is well known that Trump’s bedtime reading is not the Bible but a volume of the collected speeches of Adolf Hitler.

    Fourth, the program of global war against the rivals of American capitalism has the unstinting support of the Democratic Party. Leading Democrats paid tribute to Graham during a ceremony at the Capitol Rotunda before the funeral service. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sat in the front row and helped lay a wreath, and other Democrats were seen touching the casket in a gesture of affection.

    All 100 senators were invited to meet separately with Zelensky, in a show of support for the war against Russia. Leaders of both parties announced agreement to pass bipartisan legislation imposing even more sweeping sanctions on Russia—with a few additional sanctions on Iran to ensure Trump’s support. The first test vote was to be held Tuesday evening.

    “We are proud to announce an agreement on legislation to stop purchasers of Russian oil and gas from fueling Putin’s war machine and to continue restricting the Iranian regime’s ability to support terrorism and build its nuclear program,” a bipartisan statement said. “There is no greater way to honor Senator Graham’s legacy than to move forward with this bipartisan agreement, and we look forward to today’s vote.”

    Socialism AI Logo

    Socialism AI

    by the WSWSSocialismAI.com

    Questions about this article? Ask Socialism AI

    What is the history of the Shah of Iran’s regime and why was it overthrown in 1979?How did the US military spending and war policy shift after the Cold War ended, and what drove that change?If the US keeps escalating on both the Russia-Ukraine and Iran fronts at the same time, where will this lead?

    Ask more questions at SocialismAI.com

    The statement was issued by Republican senators Darline Graham of South Carolina (Lindsey Graham’s sister and appointed successor), Jim Risch of Idaho, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Katie Britt of Alabama, and Democratic senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. Blumenthal said he had worked with Graham for more than a year to win support for the bill.

    The legislation would impose heavy penalties on countries that purchase Russian oil, including China and India, which are among the largest customers, although Trump will have the power to waive sanctions on US allies like India and impose them only on China if he cites “national security” reasons.

    Fifth, there is the role of the corporate media, which treated the event at the National Cathedral with the greatest respect. Fox News, of course, broadcast the entire proceeding live. All the evening television news programs gave prominent coverage, while being careful not to focus on Trump’s declaration of Graham’s love for war. NBC, for example, did not even mention it.

    The day began on a note of farce, courtesy of the Washington Post,which under owner Jeff Bezos is an open ally of the Trump administration. The Tuesday edition of the Post carried an op-ed column claiming that Graham was “beloved by the Iranian people,” under the byline of Reza Pahlavi, identified by the newspaper only as “a leader of the Iranian democratic opposition.” Actually, Pahlavi is the son of the late Shah, whose bloodstained police-state regime was overthrown in 1979 by one of the great mass popular uprisings in history. He is no more a “democrat” than Graham was a “man of peace,” as he was described by Sean Hannity at the National Cathedral.

    Perhaps the most important aspect of the Graham funeral, however, was the enormous security cordon around the event. The National Cathedral audience was carefully vetted, surrounded by Secret Service agents and other police, to ensure that no one seeking to speak the truth about Graham’s record as an advocate of militarism and an apologist for mass murder—including the Israeli genocide in Gaza—could get within miles of the ceremony.

    The denizens of official Washington, Democrats as well as Republicans, live in constant fear of the American population. Their main concern is that the program of world war, requiring massive attacks on the living standards and democratic rights of the American working class, is leading to an explosion of the class struggle in America. They are right to be afraid.