Join The US Military - Kill And Die For Israel
Once again, US service members are thrown into an unjust war for a foreign power
President Trump’s decision to join Israel in launching a regime-change war on Iran has so far cost the lives of at least 13 American service members. More than 200 have been wounded, dozens seriously enough to require evacuations to military hospitals in Europe and the United States. Among them are individuals who’ve suffered traumatic brain injuries, burns and shrapnel wounds. One was facing potential amputation of an arm or leg.
As much as these service members and their families are victims of Iran’s justified retaliation for a surprise attack perpetrated amid ongoing negotiations, they’re victims of a betrayal perpetrated by their president and the joint chiefs of staff, who cast them into an unconstitutional war of aggression, packaged in lies and initiated to advance the agenda of a foreign government, while undermining the security of their own country.
Of course, US casualties comprise a small subset of the total bloodshed. In executing this unjust war, Americans have collectively inflicted far more death and dismemberment than they’ve endured, teaming up with their Israeli counterparts to kill more than 3,000 Iranians, including some 150 schoolgirls — mostly between age 7 and 12 — whose school was destroyed by Tomahawk cruise missiles at the war’s very start.
Though it should have already been apparent, Operation Epic Fury should make clear that — service members’ good intentions aside — combat waged under the US flag rarely has anything to do with American security. Moreover — and I say this as former Army Reserve enlistee and Regular Army officer — anyone thinking of starting or extending a military career should understand that their government may send them to be killed, maimed or psychologically damaged, and to slaughter foreign innocents, so long as it helps those in power remain in the good graces of the extremists who rule Israel, and their powerful collaborators inside the United States.
A New Regime-Change War Built On False Premises
Under international law, a war of aggression is considered a supreme war crime unto itself, and Operation Epic Fury is precisely that. Like so many of America’s wars before it, this one was launched on false premises. Contrary to the US-Israeli narrative…
Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. In 2007, the US intelligence community assessed that Iran halted any effort to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003. Since then, the intelligence community has periodically re-validated that conclusion, most recently in March 2025. Belying Trump’s claim that the United States had only two weeks in which to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard this week testified that Iran had made “no efforts” to rebuild its enrichment capacity after it was devastated by last summer’s US bombing.
Note that, in 2005, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa — a formal interpretation of Islamic law — asserting that “the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.” In the opening act of their latest warfare on Iran, the United States and Israel collaborated to kill him.
Iran did not stray from the 2015 nuclear deal until Trump did. When Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran was in full compliance. Among other things, the JCPOA required Iran to eliminate its medium-enriched uranium, slash its cache of low-enriched uranium by 98%, limit future enrichment to 3.67%, agree to even more external monitoring than it was already submitting to, and render its heavy-water reactor worthless by filling it with concrete. After Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in 2018 and reinstated sanctions, Iran waited a year, but then began straying from its own commitments, using elevated enrichment as a lever to push for a new agreement and relief from suffocating sanctions. Iran says the JCPOA permitted it to suspend its commitments after Trump’s withdrawal, citing language governing “material breaches” and “significant non-performance.”
Iran is a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and has long cooperated with international inspections and monitoring required by the NPT. On the other hand, Israel has refused to join the NPT and has some 200 nuclear warheads, a situation that makes every dollar of American aid to Israel illegal under US law.
Iran wasn’t the problematic negotiation partner. When historians write about the run-up to this latest of American regime-change disasters, they’ll surely emphasize that fact Trump assigned Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to represent the United States in negotiations. While people rightly scoff at their lack of credentials, it’s far more important to appreciate their intimate ties to the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who has been trying to maneuver the United States into a war with Iran for decades.
As Branko Marcetic writes in an excellent account of the negotiations at Responsible Statecraft,
Witkoff is known as a staunch supporter of Israel. He counts pro-Israel megadonor Miriam Adelson as a “dear friend” and carries a custom pager gifted to him by Netanyahu and senior Mossad officials, in a reference to an operation in which Israel remotely detonated thousands of pagers that allegedly belonged to Hezbollah officials…
Kushner, meanwhile, has been steeped in the pro-Israel community his entire life. He counted Netanyahu as a family friend growing up, with the future Israeli prime minister occasionally borrowing the teenager’s bedroom during visits. Kushner reportedly consulted with Netanyahu officials to pen Trump’s 2016 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and he is both friends with hardline pro-Israel figures and has donated money to illegal West Bank settlement-building.
In addition to their glaring conflicts of interest, Witkoff and Kushner refused to bring nuclear experts to their meetings with the Iranians, which reportedly left the Iranians perplexed about how any progress could be made in negotiating such a highly technical subject.
Iran put forward a fresh offer less than 48 hours before being attacked. In the last meeting before bombs dropped, Iran offered concessions that included dilution of its 60%-enriched uranium, a multi-year pause on new enrichment, subsequent enrichment capped at 20%, and expanded IAEA oversight. Sources say UK national security advisor Jonathan Powell, who attended that meeting, was surprised by the strength of the Iranian offer, and saw it as reason to be optimistic about reaching a deal.
After learning that Witkoff was grossly mischaracterizing Iran’s stance — if not outright lying about it — Oman’s foreign minister, who’d been mediating the discussions, made an urgent trip to Washington to tell the administration and anyone who’d listen that Iran had made substantial concessions, some of which surpassed the provisions of the JCPOA. His mission failed. In the aftermath, a Gulf diplomat bluntly told the Guardian, “We regarded Witkoff and Kushner as Israeli assets that dragged a president into a war he wants to get out of.”
Iran’s ballistic missile program wasn’t built for offense. In an example of moving goalposts that would be laughable if the context weren’t so tragic, the Trump administration reopened nuclear negotiations with a new demand — that Iran surrender its conventional ballistic missiles.
The White House claimed Iran was building a “conventional shield” that would enable future “nuclear blackmail,” but anyone who’s been paying attention could see the demand sprang from last summer’s 12-Day War, when Iran effectively used cutting-edge ballistic missiles to retaliate against Israeli aggression.
That use is consistent with US intelligence’s characterization of Iran’s military posture as primarily defensive. As the US Defense Intelligence Agency wrote in a 2019 report, “Iran’s conventional military strategy is primarily based on deterrence and the ability to retaliate against an attacker…If deterrence fails, Iran would seek to demonstrate strength and resolve, [and] impose a high cost on its adversary…this strategy is unlikely to change considerably in the near term.”
The demand for Iran’s conventional disarmament and the demand for the scientifically-advanced country to end any nuclear enrichment had something in common: both were made knowing they’d be refused. Here’s how Joe Kent — the former National Counterterrorism Center Director who resigned this week in protest of the war — characterized the enrichment demand in his in-depth, post-resignation interview with Scott Horton:
“I really frankly don’t think the Israelis cared that much about…nuclear enrichment…What I think the Israelis care about is regime change. They wanted to push this war as fast as they could, so they came up with this talking point that zero enrichment was the starting point, knowing that was a non-starter for the Iranians.”
Iran hasn’t been waging war on the United States for 47 years. To the contrary, the hostilities have overwhelmingly originated in Washington, and any thorough survey of the history should go back at least 73 years, to 1953. That’s when the United States and United Kingdom orchestrated the ouster of Iran’s democratically-elected prime minister, and the installation of the Shah. The ledger should also include US support of Iraq’s eight-year war on Iran in the 1980s, which included giving artillery targeting intel to Iraq, with the knowledge those targets would be hit with chemical weapons. Then there’s decades of economic blockades, which, mirroring the morality of Al Qaeda, intentionally inflict suffering on civilians with a goal of forcing political change. Last summer brought America’s unprovoked bombing of Iran’s imaginary nuclear weapons program. The ceasefire that ended the so-called 12-Day War turned out to be a mere strategic pause before all-out warfare was initiated by Israel and the United States on Feb 28.
A central line in the “47-year war” narrative falsely blames Iran for killing “thousands” of Americans in Iraq, by supposedly directing Shia militias to target Americans, and equipping them with improvised explosive devices (IED). In a concise treatment at his Substack, former Marine officer Matthew Hoh, who led counter-IED efforts in Iraq, dismantled that well-entrenched narrative. His key points:
The great majority of American service members killed in Iraq died at the hands of Sunni resistance groups. Iran provided some support to Shia militias, but Hoh calls out the hypocrisy of US officials saying Iran alone has blood on its hands, pinning no such blame on US-aligned Gulf monarchies that backed Sunni militias in Iraq.
Americans were an occupying force in a country that US forces had devastated and which was beset by civil war, which means both Shia and Sunni militias had their own reasons for using violence against them. Hoh notes that the now-decades-old narrative that Iraqis were killing American soldiers and Marines on orders from Iran “not only helped justify a longed-for war with Iran but also bolstered the fiction of the American occupation as a benevolent and liberating one.”
The charge that Iran killed Americans with IEDs centers on the claim that Iran provided Shia militias with a special type of IED called an explosively formed penetrator (EFP). “Anyone with a simple understanding of explosive principles and a half-decent machine shop can make an EFP,” says Hoh. Given the abundance of explosives and other materials around war-torn Iraq, Hoh says “Shia forces were able to mass-produce EFPs in Iraq. Smuggling in EFPs from Iran was unnecessary.”
Iran isn’t the “world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.” If that title were awarded on the merits, the top contenders would include Saudi Arabia, the United States and Israel. The US government selectively applies the “state sponsor” label to vilify countries and — more importantly — as the basis for imposing economic sanctions. As we’ve seen in the case of Cuba and others, American secretaries of state have full discretion to slap the “state sponsor of terror” label on and pull it off, with no due process or burden of proof required.
“The US’s list of terrorist organizations is at this point really laughable, because we take groups off willy-nilly based on whether we like them politically or not — not whether they’ve actually engaged in or continue to engage in terrorism,” said Trita Parsi, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft co-founder, in a recent appearance on Judging Freedom. “The Sudanese got off the State Department’s terrorist list by simply agreeing to normalize relations with Israel — nothing else.”
It’s true that Iran has sponsored various groups in the Middle East that seek to thwart US and Israeli hegemony in the region. At times, some of those groups — like Hamas — have used violence against civilians to achieve political ends, which is the honest definition of terrorism.
However, US and Israeli condemnation of Iran’s support for such groups is intensely hypocritical, considering the United States and Israel have themselves backed forces that have carried out terrorism. Indeed, if sponsorship of Hamas is damning for Iran, it’s also damning for Israel and Netanyahu, who long fostered the rise of Hamas even after it turned to terror.
Then there’s the regime-change campaign in Syria, which saw the United States and its Gulf allies empowering head-chopping terrorists, and saw Israel patching up al Qaeda members and sending them back into the fight. Keep in mind, Iranian-backed Hezbollah and Shia militias were instrumental in beating back ISIS, the monstrous terror entity that sprang from the Syria regime-change campaign carried out for Israel.
Shattering The Middle East For Greater Israel
The war on Iran isn’t about nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles or state-sponsored terrorism. It’s the continuation of a long-running Israeli program to achieve total dominance over the Middle East by repeatedly shattering surrounding states and territories. Here’s how the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer has described it:
“The Israelis want to make sure that their neighbors are weak and that means breaking them apart, if you can, and keeping them broken…The Israelis want Syria to be a fractured state. They want Lebanon to be a fractured state. What do they want in Iran? …What the Israelis want to do is to break Iran apart. They want to make it look like Syria.”
For many in Israel, this strategy isn’t merely about safeguarding the current version of Israel. Rather, it’s a means of achieving an expansionist dream of “Greater Israel.” While interpretations vary, this vision typically goes far beyond annexing the West Bank and Gaza, also taking Egyptian territory east of the Nile, along with all or portions of what is now Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
The US government has aided and abetted this ruthless strategy in a variety of ways, from the arming of Israel, to running covert operations to foment unrest and equip militant groups, to direct use of American military force. The human cost has been incalculable. In the regime-change wars against Iraq and Syria alone, more than a half million people have been killed, and several times more are believed to have died from secondary causes like disease.
Sadly, it seems it’s now Iran’s turn to be shattered in the pursuit of Israeli supremacy. Iran has been Netanyahu’s white whale: After the launch of Operation Epic Fury, Netanyahu gushed that Trump’s collaboration meant Israel was finally doing what Netanyahu had “yearned to do for 40 years.”
Underscoring the cold-blooded and maliciously dishonest nature of the regime-destruction campaign, consider that Israel and the United States have framed their surprise attack on Iran as a virtuous endeavor meant to liberate the Iranian people from theocratic rule. On the day Israel and the United States launched this new war on Iran, Netanyahu called on Iranians to rise up: “Do not sit idly by, very soon the moment will come when you must take to the streets to finish the job and overthrow the totalitarian regime.”
However, at the same time Netayahu was calling for an Iranian uprising, senior Israeli officials were privately telling US diplomats that “the people will get slaughtered” if they act on those exhortations. Of course, any such slaughter would serve the Israeli agenda, since it could be used to propagandize for more vigorous regime-change action, up to and including what is likely Netanyahu’s greatest wish: a US ground invasion.
Killing Innocents, Sparking Global Catastrophe
It’s hard to imagine, but there could be something even worse than committing one’s self to the defense of America, only to be killed or maimed in a campaign to advance the agenda of a foreign government that is far less an ally than a parasite— and that’s killing, wounding and immiserating innocent people for that same government.
Through March 19, more than 3,000 Iranians have been killed by American and Israeli attacks, according to HRANA, an Iran-focused human rights group. Of that total, 1,394 were civilians, including those several dozen schoolgirls killed on day one; 639 deaths have yet to be classified as military or civilian.
There have been more than 1,100 Iranian military fatalities. Among those dead Iranian service members are 87 sailors whose lightly-armed ship was sunk by an American torpedo off the coast of Sri Lanka. The ship was not only far away from the war zone, but it was reportedly lightly-armed as it was returning from a largely-ceremonial, multi-national exercise hosted by India in the interest of building international maritime cooperation.
Given they died on the receiving end of an unjust war of aggression, these and other dead members of the Iranian military were likewise innocent victims of America’s war for Israel. Note too that, unlike every American who’s dishing out death from the sky, land or sea, most Iranians in uniform are conscripts, not volunteers.
That said, there’s reason to empathize with volunteer American service members who’ve now been ordered to wage this war. Ahead of their enlistments or commissioning, most are ill-equipped to peel back the patriotic red-white-and-blue veneer and discern the true nature of US military service. In a sense, they’re victims of a grand fraud. Millions of their fellow citizens are oblivious collaborators in that fraud, to the extent they help perpetuate the false assumption that military service is inherently virtuous and invariably serves the American people.
With Marines now steaming toward the Persian Gulf, the 82nd Airborne Division gearing up and Netanyahu cryptically referring to the necessity for a “ground component”, the number of dead, wounded, dismembered and PTSD-inflicted Americans could soar higher. Given the unjust nature of this war, many are certain to face a lifetime dealing with a lesser-known type of wound — moral injury, which is psychological and emotional distress springing from having witnessed, participated in, or failed to prevent acts that go against one’s moral convictions.
Importantly, the suffering that springs from this war of aggression isn’t confined to the United States, Israel, Iran and Gulf states hosting US bases. People around the world are already coping with growing scarcity and increasing cost of oil and gas. Asian countries are particularly vulnerable, and they’re already taking measures like rationing fuel, cutting workweeks, urging more people to work from home and closing hotels hit by diminished air travel — all this after less than three weeks of the Strait of Hormuz being closed to most traffic.
There’s much more to this Pandora’s box of harms. For example, the world’s supply of medicine is in growing jeopardy. “Nearly half of U.S. generic prescriptions originate in India, which relies on the Strait of Hormuz for the arrival of key inputs in drug manufacturing,” explains CNBC. The Gulf also supplies about half the world’s urea — a fertilizer component — and the price US corn farmers are paying for fertilizer has jumped upwards of 70%. That presages higher food costs all over the world, with malnourishment and starvation a distinct risk in some parts of the world.
Clearly, if the war continues and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, it’s certain to result in a global health catastrophe, a devastating economic depression, surging crime and social unrest. America’s standing will be profoundly and irreparably damaged in a world united in outrage over a US president’s lawless decision to launch this demented war of choice in service to Israel. American citizens are likely to suffer terrorist acts inspired by this latest savagery inflicted on a Muslim country.
And it will have all started with weapons fired by American service members…
…service members who swore to defend the Constitution, but were given unconstitutional orders to wage war without congressional authorization
…service members who joined the military to defend America, but became attack dogs for a foreign country that saps America’s wealth, depletes America’s arsenal, undermines America’s security and standing, exerts alarming influence on America’s institutions, and inspires terrorism against Americans back home
…service members who should now recognize a stark reality — that they are cogs in a machine that repeatedly inflicts death, dismemberment, disease and destitution on countless innocents in service to the rogue, expansionist State of Israel.
Thank you for this comprehensive review of American and Israeli lawlessness, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I especially appreciate your pointing out that every dime of aid provided to nuclear-armed Israel is illegal under US law—owing to both the Glenn and Symington Amendments to the Arms Export Control Act, and the Foreign Assistance Acts respectively. These laws are never discussed in the mainstream media, nor does anyone in Congress ever raise this issue, even though Israeli nukes, controlled by Zionist fanatics, are the greatest threat to life on this planet.
Wow. What a great explanation of where we came from to where we are today. Thank you.