Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Amnesty International concludes that, over a month after a ceasefire was agreed upon in Gaza and all living Israeli hostages were returned, the Israeli authorities continue to pursue the textbook definition of genocide “by continuing to deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.” Moreover, Israeli leaders continue openly to affirm that this course of action is intentional on their parts.
The Secretary General of Amnesty International, Agnes Calmard, observed that “Palestinians remain held within less than half of the territory of Gaza, in the areas least capable of supporting life, with humanitarian aid still severely restricted.” Amnesty says that the Israeli military continues to occupy on the order of 55% of the Gaza Strip. There has been no move to rehabilitate the farmland that has been deliberately destroyed by the Israelis over two years or rebuild livestock. The Israelis routinely shoot at Palestinian fishing boats, preventing them from harvesting protein from the sea. The report concludes, “Palestinians are left virtually totally deprived of independent access to forms of sustenance.”
Ms. Calmard warned that: “The ceasefire risks creating a dangerous illusion that life in Gaza is returning to normal. But while Israeli authorities and forces have reduced the scale of their attacks and allowed limited amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza, the world must not be fooled. Israel’s genocide is not over.”
Amnesty observes that Israeli fighter pilots and troops have killed about 350 people in Gaza since the so-called ceasefire was trumpeted on October 9. Moreover, Israelis are deliberately obstructing the process of rebuilding “life-sustaining infrastructure.” This cruel behavior is also illegal, directly violating “multiple orders from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for Israel to ensure that Palestinians have access to humanitarian supplies.”
Let me just say that Israeli authorities agreed as part of the ceasefire to allow 600 trucks of food and other aid into Gaza daily. It is only allowing in about 200 trucks per day, only a third of what was pledged. As a result, the World Food Program says it is only able to reach about 100,000 households with food parcels and wheat, and even then it can only get them 75% of full rations. Its target is 320,000 households or 1.6 million needy people.
Again, this is me speaking: These limitations are not natural. They are the result of deliberate Israeli policies. Israeli troops at checkpoints are deliberately slow-rolling the entry of aid into Gaza on orders from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extreme-right cabinet. They are restricting overall humanitarian throughput, creating “major bottlenecks, including de-prioritization of humanitarian cargo, low offloading rates, scanning capacity, and suspended
In recent days, Israel has dramatically escalated its violations of the ceasefire in both Gaza and Lebanon, which have been met with utter silence from the United States. Could this mean a return to the full-scale atrocities of the past two years?
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word “ceasefire” means: “a suspension of active hostilities.” The so-called “kids’ definition” is: “a temporary stopping of warfare.” That all seems clear enough.
But Israel’s definition differs significantly. They understand “ceasefire” to mean: “they cease, we fire.”
This is not news to Palestinians, Lebanese, or any of Israel’s neighbors. Much like how Israel and its supporters like to say that there was “peace” before October 7, 2023, questions of violence are always defined not by whether there is shooting or bombing but by whether Israelis are getting hit with those bullets and bombs.
When the United States imposed or brokered ceasefires between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah, it was well understood by all that Washington would have to keep Israel on a tight leash for the agreements to hold. It was not hard to anticipate that the attention to that task would not be sustainable under Donald Trump.
Recent events have proven that to be true. Israel has never held to either ceasefire, of course. But in recent days, it has dramatically escalated its violations in both Gaza and Lebanon, and these violations have been met with utter silence from the United States.
Are we about to see a return to the full-scale atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon that became so sickeningly familiar these past two years? And why did the U.S. go to the trouble of brokering these ceasefire agreements if they were just going to let Israel destroy them so flagrantly and easily?
Above all, what is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu trying to achieve, as he seems to be calling all the shots, directly or indirectly?
Israel’s aims
Israel’s goals are clear enough: endless war.
After the United Nations Security Council shamefully voted to endorse Donald Trump’s colonialist plan to impose conditions on the Palestinians as the price for stopping Israel’s full-scale genocide in Gaza, Netanyahu reactednot like a leader who had gotten what he wanted, but like a man who just saw a development he needed to prevent.
“Israel extends its hand in peace and prosperity to all of our neighbors” and calls on neighboring countries to “join us in expelling Hamas and its supporters from the region.”
Expulsion of Hamaswas not part ofTrump’s plan or the Security Council’s resolution. Netanyahu obviously added this to prick Hamas, add fuel to his efforts to undermine the Trump plan, and to toss a bone to his right flank.
Israel had never heeded the ceasefire to begin with. More than 340 overwhelmingly non-combatant Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire was put in place, and over 15,000 more structures in Gaza have been destroyed, just as flooding, overflowing sewage, rains, and the cold weather of approaching winter start to hit the already battered population.
In just the past few days, though, Israel has killed more than 60 Palestinians in Gaza, a sign of escalation. It is no coincidence that this uptick comes on the heels of Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman’s (MBS) visit to Washington where he once again insisted, much to Trump’s annoyance, that if Donald Trump wanted to see a normalization deal between his kingdom and Israel, there would need to be a clear, committed path to a Palestinian state with a timeline. Whether MBS was sincere about that or not, Netanyahu has no intention of making even the slightest gesture in that direction, and the escalation in Gaza was, at least in part, his response to that part of the Trump-MBS confab.
And so what Israel is successfully doing is drawing Trump into a war with Iran which will be on a scale which no military expect could even imagine was possible………………..Worse, will be any scenario where the Israelis or the U.S. can justify using nuclear weapons if the conventional attack doesn’t quite go to plan.
Isn’t it a failure of both U.S. foreign policy and of Israel that a war with Iran is seen as a solution to America’s failing hegemony?
It is a long-debated subject. Whether it is the U.S. which controls Israel or the other way around. In the 70s, under President Nixon, many analysts firmly believed, despite the JFK assassination, that it was still the U.S. who called the shots and used Israel as a useful tool in the Middle East to keep a rowdy group of Arab states in check and subservient to America’s interests. But it is in recent years where we have to see if Israel has done that effectively and meticulously in America’s interests, given that most analysts agree that Israel and the U.S. are both preparing for war with Iran.
Given that Israel’s main task was to keep the region in order to serve America’s hegemony and its energy needs, one has to ask isn’t it a failure of both U.S. foreign policy and of Israel that a war with Iran is seen as a solution to America’s failing hegemony? And doesn’t this tail wagging the dog scenario show itself in the clear light once and for all?
Recently two startling revelations about Israel’s attacks on Iran in June – otherwise known as the ‘twelve-day war’ have surfaced which should worry Americans as it shows just how far this abusive relationship has become, with Israel playing the role of the spoilt child waving daddy’s pistol as its master. Former CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou and the formidable U.S. academic John Mearsheimer have both confirmed that it was Israel who basically threatened Trump that if he didn’t send ‘bunker buster’ bombs to Iran in a bid to destroy the country’s underground nuclear facilities that they, Israel, would bomb Iran with nuclear weapons. Trump rolled over of course and complied.
But this extraordinary act by Israel illustrates just how far this Nabokov-esque relationship between Lolita and her foster dad has got. To the point that world wars involving nukes is now on the table for any U.S. president who thinks he can play hardball with Israel. The twist to this story is that the bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites was not at all a success as it has become evident that the Iranians knew it was coming and moved out a lot of the nukes days beforehand. And even the bombing itself didn’t have anywhere near the impact that was expected. It was symbolic more than anything in that it sent a message to the Iranians that such an act was possible under the Trump administration.
In many ways the attack was a gift to the Iranians as it focused their minds and made them aware where they needed to improve their defensive capabilities. It was a test run and they learnt from it.
But for the Americans it certainly couldn’t be called a success.
If it were a success, even the laziest two-bit hack in Washington could arrive at the obvious question, when hostilities kick off again, why are we at war with Iran if we’ve taken out their nuclear capability?
The U.S. has been busy in recent weeks sending naval ships and preparing for air-to-air refuelling of Israel’s jets – crucial in any conflict with Iran given the distance between the two countries – which merely confirms two poignant points. Firstly, that Iran’s response the first time round had significant impact on Israel’s military arsenal (many military sites in Israel were taken out completely, barely mentioned by U.S. media); and secondly that even the U.S. had had its own stocks depleted – which is why a pause quickly came about after the twelve-days was. U.S. and Israel needed to rearm but also prepare themselves for the second phase, while Iran itself has improved its own air defences and reached out to Russia and China for rearming.
And so what Israel is successfully doing is drawing Trump into a war with Iran which will be on a scale which no military expect could even imagine was possible, given that this time around Iran is so much better prepared and that the surprise of using Azerbaijani airspace cannot be repeated. The Israelis don’t have any hit-n-run surprise tactics to rely on, which might lead some analysts to believe that a bigger, broader attack is in the making with the U.S. as a key partner rather than chief supplier. Worse, will be any scenario where the Israelis or the U.S. can justify using nuclear weapons if the conventional attack doesn’t quite go to plan. And all this under the watch of Donald Trump whose entire support base was about stopping ‘forever wars’ in the Middle East. How will he explain to his broader support base that he has nothing to do with U.S. troops being sent to their deaths in Iran, that it is Israel who controls such decisions?
Star Wars is back in vogue with President Trump’s executive order to establish the “Golden Dome” missile defense shield. It will feature an ambitious space-based boost-phase interceptor program in addition to terrestrial systems. While admittedly the holy grail of defense against ballistic missiles, the obstacles that plagued its discontinued predecessor, “Brilliant Pebble,” under the Strategic Defense Initiative, remain unaddressed. The technological breakthroughs in launch capacity, decreasing costs of sending mass into space and faster data transfer have led to renewed hope for space-based missile defense, but the fundamental hurdle — physics, not technology — remains to be effectively overcome.
Recurrent interest in space-based missile interceptors (SBI) is driven by the motivation to neutralize the missile in the boost phase, contrary to the other air defense systems that intercept either in the mid-course or the terminal phase. This offers numerous advantages: it is substantially easier to detect and target as the booster has not detached yet, making the target bulkier; the plume from the burn makes it visible; its speed is slower compared to other phases; and the target has not hardened yet, making it more vulnerable. Once the missile enters the midcourse, it deploys decoys with a similar radar cross-section as the actual warhead, which float at similar trajectories, making it exponentially harder to achieve an effective kill. Additionally, the deployment of multiple warheads in case of a Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle or zig-zag moment of hypersonic glide vehicles adds another layer of complexity to successful interception.
However, this lucrative promise is heavily outweighed by the drawback of what could be termed the absenteeism problem in physics. These satellites, carrying kill vehicles, must be stationed in low Earth orbit (LEO) to reach the target in the boost phase, which only lasts from three to five minutes after launch. The fundamental problem is that objects in LEO cannot be parked above one point on Earth; they revolve around Earth, completing a cycle between 90 and 120 minutes. To cover the entire stretch of potential launching points and establish a genuinely global air defense, a constellation of 950 satellites has to be deployed, according to conservative estimates. The estimated cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, is $542 billion as opposed to the $175 billion claim by President Trump.
Not only is the scaling dynamic flawed, but the system is also easy to defeat. The constellation is easily overwhelmed by simultaneous launches. Even if each satellite were to carry more than one interceptor, the system still saturates quickly. Once that happens, instead of a linear increase in required satellites to intercept additional hostile launches, the requirement jumps exponentially, which is untenable. Besides, the enemy can simply punch holes in the chain by employing anti-satellite missiles, as the satellites can be tracked.
Furthermore, attempts to field even a limited number of SBIs for tests could pose a security dilemma for other states. These SBIs can be effective ASAT vehicles as they would require high thrust and maneuverability, allowing them to potentially reach and attack satellites in geosynchronous orbits. This can trigger an arms race of satellite-based weapons as well as counter-space capabilities, resulting in a net effect of added insecurity for all, including the U.S. itself, which depends heavily on its space capabilities. Challenging the effectiveness of an adversary’s deterrent would have profound strategic implications, at least insofar as it would either find qualitative ways to evade the newly developed defense architecture, or increase the number of their missiles to overwhelm the systems, or both. Ultimately, durable security cannot be achieved alone but in concert with others, including the adversary, and perhaps the only way to prevent attacks and ensure long-term stability remains deterrence by punishment.
The proposal for SBIs has also triggered sharp international reactions. China has already fielded its own “Golden Dome” prototype, which is essentially an early warning system with enormous big data computation ability, that uses the present capabilities in a more integrated and efficient manner, rather than seeking new platforms for interceptors. Criticizing the American approach, Beijing has asserted that SBIs would disturb “global strategic balance and stability” and turn “space into a war zone”, while Moscow has called it “very destabilizing.”
The desire to secure the homeland drives this saga, undergirded by the belief that technology could fundamentally alter defense logics. Yet despite significant progress in almost all the technological components needed to improve the cost-benefit equation, the physical — and perhaps insurmountable — barriers remain as formidable as they were three decades ago. The return to space-based interceptors thus reflects a recurring faith in technological solutions to strategic problems that are, at their core, governed by physics and deterrence. Rather than investing in an orbit-based missile shield that risks instability and imposes exorbitant costs, pursuing balanced security arrangements may offer a sustainable path toward long-term stability.
Najam Ul Hassan is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies, Lahore.
Mintpress News, September 18th, 2025, Alan Macleod
The United States is building up its military assets, sparking fears of another regime change attempt against Venezuela—and this one could be far more deadly than the others. Citing an influx of Venezuelan drugs into the U.S., the Trump administration is rapidly building up its military forces, encircling the South American nation, one which has been in Washington’s crosshairs for over a quarter of a century.
Military Buildup
The Trump administration is once again setting its sights on Venezuela. In recent weeks, President Trump deployed additional naval and air assets to the Caribbean, including seven warships, a submarine, and an amphibious assault ship, designed for maritime invasions. A squadron of advanced F-35 fighter jets has also been relocated to Puerto Rico, bringing them within striking distance of Caracas. In total, around 4,500 personnel (including 2,500 combat-ready Marines) have been repositioned to the area.
In what could be the opening salvo of a major war, the military has already begun to flex its muscles. Earlier this month, it destroyed a small Venezuelan vessel, carrying out multiple attacks on the boat to ensure there were no survivors. Trump celebrated the action in a post on Truth Social, claiming that the boat was carrying illicit drugs to the United States, and that its crew were member of the Tren de Aragua cartel (TDA), a group, he said, is “operating under the control of [Venezuelan president] Nicolás Maduro” himself; one that is “responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Claims vs Evidence
The Trump administration’s extraordinary claims about Maduro and Venezuela have convinced few experts. Professor Julia Buxton of Liverpool John Moores University, a specialist in both global drug policy and Venezuelan politics, told MintPress:
“The claim that Venezuela is a major drugs producer has been an ongoing theme of the U.S. campaign against Venezuela dating back to the early 2000s. This kind of anti-drug messaging is really common in U.S. foreign policy and strategy for at least 100 years. What we have got here is essentially just recycled Ronald Reagan [talking points] … It is unsubstantiated and absurd, and it is really not backed by any official data.”
The data does indeed jar wildly with the administration’s accusations. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s World Drug Report 2025 explains that cocaine—the drug most associated with South America—is primarily produced in Colombia, Peru, or Bolivia, and transported via ports in Ecuador to the United States. Venezuela is not mentioned at all in the 98-page document, which catalogs producers, consumers, suppliers, and supply lines of drugs.
The vast majority of lethal drugs produced in South America travel via the Pacific coastline from Ecuador. In terms of supply routes, a small amount of Colombian cocaine is trafficked through the country’s long and porous rainforest border with Venezuela, and then transported via the Caribbean. But this is minuscule in comparison to that transported via Pacific ships, over the land route through Central America and Mexico, or simply flown directly to the U.S. from the cocaine producing states………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-venezuela-drug-war-claims/290475/
After previous plans by Israel for the mass expulsion of Palestinians, onlookers fear the proposal to house some displaced Palestinians in “compounds” they may not be allowed to leave.
A new Trump administration plan to put Palestinians living in the Israeli-occupied parts of Gaza into “residential compounds” is raising eyebrows among international observers, who fear it could more closely resemble a system of “concentration camps within a mass concentration camp.”
Under the current “ceasefire” agreement—which remains technically intact despite hundreds of alleged violations by Israel that have resulted in the deaths of over 300 Palestinians—Israel still occupies the eastern portion of Gaza, an area greater than 50% of the entire strip. The vast majority of the territory’s nearly 2 million inhabitants are crammed onto the other side of the yellow line into an area of roughly 60 square miles—around the size of St Louis, Missouri, or Akron, Ohio.
As Ramiz Alakbarov, the United Nations’ deputy special coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, explained Monday at a briefing to the UN Security Council: “Two years of fighting has left almost 80% of Gaza’s 250,000 buildings damaged or destroyed. Over 1.7 million people remain displaced, many in overcrowded shelters without adequate access to water, food, or medical care.”
The New York Timesreported Tuesday that the new US proposal would seek to resettle some of those Palestinians in what the Trump administration calls “Alternative Safe Communities,”on the Israeli-controlled side of the yellow line.
Based on information from US officials and European diplomats, the Timessaid these “model compounds” are envisioned as a housing option “more permanent than tent villages, but still made up of structures meant to be temporary. Each could provide housing for as many as 20,000 or 25,000 people alongside medical clinics and schools.”
The project is being led by Trump official Aryeh Lightstone, who previously served as an aide to Trump’s first envoy to Jerusalem. According to the Times: “His team includes an eclectic, fluctuating group of American diplomats, Israeli magnates and officials from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—the sweeping Washington cost-cutting effort overseen earlier this year by Elon Musk.”
The source of funding for the project remains unclear, though the cost of just one compound is estimated to run into the tens of millions. Meanwhile, the newspaper noted that even if ten of these compounds were constructed, it would be just a fraction of what is needed to provide safety and shelter to all of Gaza’s displaced people. It’s unlikely that the first structures would be complete for months.
While the Times said that “the plan could offer relief for thousands of Palestinians who have endured two years of war,” it also pointed to criticisms that it “could entrench a de facto partition of Gaza into Israeli- and Hamas-controlled zones.” Others raised concerns about whether the people of Gaza will even want to move from their homes after years or decades of resisting Israel’s occupation.
But digging deeper into the report, critics have noted troubling language. For one thing, Israeli officials have the final say over which Palestinians are allowed to enter the “compounds” and will heavily scrutinize the backgrounds of applicants, likely leading many to be blacklisted.
In one section, titled “Freedom of Movement,” the Times report noted that “some Israeli officials have argued that, for security reasons, Palestinians should only be able to move into the new compounds, not to leave them, according to officials.”
This language harkens back to a proposal earlier this year by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, who called for the creation of a massive “humanitarian city” built on the ruins of Rafah that would be used as part of an “emigration plan” for hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians in Gaza.
Under that plan, Palestinians would have been given “security screenings” and once inside would not be allowed to leave. Humanitarian organizations, including those inside Israel, roundly condemned the plan as essentially a “concentration camp.”
Prior to that, Trump called for the people of Gaza—“all of them”—to be permanently expelled and for the US to “take over” the strip, demolish the remaining buildings, and construct what he described as the “Riviera of the Middle East.” That plan was widely described as one of ethnic cleansing.
The new plan to move Palestinians to “compounds” is raising similar concerns.
“What is it called when a military force concentrates an ethnic or religious group into compounds without the ability to leave?” asked Assal Rad, a PhD in Middle Eastern history and a fellow at the Arab Center in Washington, DC.
Sana Saeed, a senior producer for AJ+, put it more plainly: “concentration camps within a mass concentration camp.”……………………………………………
……………………………………….. there is a conspicuous lack of any clear plan for what happens to those Palestinians who continue to live outside the safe communities, warning that Israel’s security clearances could serve as a way of marking them as fair targets for even more escalated military attacks.
“Those who remain outside of the alternative communities, in the ‘red zone,’” he said, “risk being labelled ‘Hamas supporters’ and therefore ineligible for protection under Israel’s warped interpretation of international law and subject to ongoing military operations, as already seen in past days.” https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-gaza-compounds
both the Nuremberg Principles and the Uniform Code of Military Justice established a duty to obey lawful orders but also a duty to disobey unlawful orders.
The courageous action of six Democratic members of Congress has thrust into the national discourse the duty of military and CIA personnel to disobey Donald Trump’s illegal orders. As the Trump administration continues to unlawfully murder people in small vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, deploy the National Guard to U.S. cities, and ignore court orders, the six lawmakers were moved to act.
In a 90-second video organized by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (Michigan), two senators and four Congress members, all U.S. military or CIA veterans, take turns reading a statement to active servicemembers, urging them to refuse to follow illegal orders.
“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution,” the lawmakers said in the video. “Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”The other lawmakers speaking in the video are Sen. Mark Kelly (Arizona) and Representatives Chris Deluzio (Pennsylvania), Maggie Goodlander (New Hampshire), Chrissy Houlahan (Pennsylvania), and Jason Crow (Colorado).
Trump Threatens Six Lawmakers With Sedition Charges and Hanging
Their words, which constituted a correct statement of the law, elicited unprecedented vitriol from Trump, who wrote on Truth Social: “It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.”
In a second post, Trump wrote: “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT.” And he added in a third post: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” Trump also reposted a statement saying: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”
The six lawmakers responded to Trump’s diatribe in a statement: “What’s most telling is that the president considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty.”
Now the Department of War is investigating Kelly for “serious allegations of misconduct,” threatening to call him back to active duty and court-martial him. The Department’s “Official Statement” posted on X adds, “All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful.” But they fail to add that servicemembers also have a legal duty to disobey unlawful orders, which is what Kelly and his fellow lawmakers accurately stated in their video.
The Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a servicemember can be punished by court-martial for refusing to obey any lawful order or regulation. Although the UCMJ doesn’t define “lawful,” the Manual for Courts-Martial states that an order is lawful “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.”
The manual also says that although it may be inferred that an order to perform a military duty or act is lawful, “this inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” The Rules for Courts-Martial say that acting “pursuant to orders” is a legitimate defense “unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.”
Finally, the manual notes, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” Normally, that determination can be made only after a servicemember refuses or disobeys an order, in a court martial or war crimes tribunal. So the refuser takes the risk that a judge will find the order lawful and he or she will be punished for refusing to follow it.
Examples of unlawful orders within the United States include:
The use of military forces to deport, remove, or detain immigrants. Removal to countries where there is a substantial likelihood of torture violates the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the U.S. has ratified.
The use of military forces against civilian protesters. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of federal troops to enforce domestic law unless there is an “insurrection.”
Examples of unlawful orders outside the United States include:
Military attacks on vessels in international or foreign waters.
An invasion or attack on Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, etc.
The use of “preemptive” military force against Iran, China, etc.
The use of nuclear weapons against any country.
The torture or cruel treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, or other detainees.
The intentional targeting of civilians.
Attacking Palestinians in Gaza under the guise of “peacekeeping.”
Resistance to Illegal U.S. Wars — From Vietnam to Iraq
In 1968, U.S. Army Lt. William Calley led 100 U.S. troops into the village of My Lai in Vietnam and killed 500 civilian women, children, and elderly men in what came to be known as the My Lai Massacre.
Calley was accused of the premeditated murder of civilians. Charges were filed against 25 people, including two generals. The charges against the generals, 10 other officers, and seven enlisted men were dismissed. Five others, including the company commander, Capt. Ernest Medina, were court-martialed and acquitted.
At his court-martial, Calley claimed that he was just following Medina’s orders to kill all the villagers because everyone in the village was “the enemy.”
Like the Nazi officials at Nuremberg, Calley’s defense that he was just following superior orders was rejected. In 1971, he was convicted of the premeditated murder of “not less than” 22 Vietnamese people and sentenced to life in prison. Ultimately, Calley only served over three years of house arrest and confinement to barracks.
But there is a noble tradition in the United States of servicemembers refusing orders to deploy to illegal wars and/or commit war crimes. Some refusers have been arrested and court-martialed. Many have argued in their defense that they had a legal duty to disobey illegal orders.
Howard Levy
……………………………..Levy disobeyed an order to train Special Forces aidmen to be paramedics. He felt they would use their medical training to gain the trust of the Vietnamese people who would then not oppose U.S. troops carrying out their illegal missions. Levy, who called this the “prostitution of medicine,” thought these Green Berets were committing war crimes…………………….
Ehren Watada
…………………………….“The war in Iraq is in fact illegal. It is my obligation and my duty to refuse any orders to participate in this war. An order to take part in an illegal war is unlawful in itself……………………………………………………………………
Pablo Paredes.
………………………refused orders to board an amphibious assault ship that would transport 3,000 Marines to Iraq because he thought he would be complicit as a war criminal……………………………………………………………………………………………………. the Iraq War violated the UN Charter, and that Paredes had a reasonable belief that by transporting Marines to Iraq, he would place them in the position of committing war crimes………..U.S. forces were torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, which constituted war crimes…………both the Nuremberg Principles and the Uniform Code of Military Justice established a duty to obey lawful orders but also a duty to disobey unlawful orders……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………..After the six members of Congress released their bold video, Veterans For Peace said in a statement:
We call on all veterans to stand with these members of Congress and amplify their message so that Airmen, Marines, Seamen, and Army troops know that if they ever face the difficult challenge of refusing an illegal order, they are carrying out their oath to defend the Constitution by following the law.
This vision of relentless war is consistently advocated by those who have never experienced its brutal reality.
These are men who have never found themselves in a trench. They see war as a video game – a contest of “Speed. Scale. Competition” – with clean graphics and no blood. They do not know the smell of a field hospital, the weight of a fallen comrade, or the thousand-yard stare of a soldier with PTSD.
The rhetoric of transforming the Pentagon into a “battlefield power” is historically illiterate, morally bankrupt, and a recipe for endless war.
A recent public statement by Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, celebrating the transformation of the Department of Defence, offers a chilling vision for America’s future. He praised the shift “from bureaucratic process to battlefield power” and vowed to “unleash the ‘Arsenal of Freedom’.”
This is not a serious national security strategy. It is a dangerous and illogical fantasy, peddled by those who have never borne the true cost of war, and it threatens to plunge the nation into a cycle of perpetual conflict from which it may not recover.
The Illogical and Ahistorical Core of “Battlefield Power”
The rhetoric is built on buzzwords designed to sound strong, but which collapse under the slightest scrutiny.
First, the very idea of reframing the mission of the Department of Defence as pure “battlefield power” is a rejection of the very tools that prevent wars from starting. It sidelines diplomacy, intelligence, and strategic restraint in favour of the hammer – and when you are a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. This is not sophistication; it is intellectual bankruptcy.
Second, the phrase “Arsenal of Freedom” is Orwellian newspeak. An arsenal is a collection of weapons. Freedom is an ideal. To conflate the two is to argue that liberty is delivered by missiles and its volume is measured in munitions. This is the logic of a conqueror, not a liberator. True freedom is built in classrooms, hospitals, and polling stations, not imposed by a B-52 bomber.
History is littered with the ruins of empires that believed in their own unstoppable military might. The Roman Empire, Napoleon’s France, and the Third Reich all shared this faith in raw “battlefield power.” Their fates are a testament to the folly of this philosophy. More recently, the United States has “unleashed its arsenal” in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The result was not a wave of freedom, but decades of instability, the rise of new terrorist threats, millions of refugees, and a deep, lasting distrust of American motives.
The Hypocrisy of the Armchair General
The most glaring flaw in this rhetoric is the character of those who champion it. This vision of relentless war is consistently advocated by those who have never experienced its brutal reality.
These are men who have never found themselves in a trench. They see war as a video game – a contest of “Speed. Scale. Competition” – with clean graphics and no blood. They do not know the smell of a field hospital, the weight of a fallen comrade, or the thousand-yard stare of a soldier with PTSD.
This disconnect is often paired with a personal history that contradicts the virtues they preach. How can one speak of “Accountability” and “Patriotism” while allegedly fostering a toxic environment and demonstrating a leadership vacuum in their own professional conduct? This is not the profile of someone who understands the gravity of sending others to die. It is the profile of a man playing with live human beings as if they were toy soldiers.
The Ghost of Colonialism and the Path to Perpetual War
This speech is not about defense; it is about empire. It is a revival of the pernicious colonial power syndrome, dressed in the flag and speaking of freedom.
The language of bringing “freedom” to others through superior firepower is the exact same justification used by every colonial power from the British Empire to King Leopold’s Congo. It is a narrative that dehumanises the “other” and justifies their subjugation for their own “good.”
This path leads not to a peaceful hegemony, but to a state of perpetual war. It creates new enemies faster than it can kill old ones. It drains the national treasury, diverts resources from domestic prosperity, and morally corrupts the nation from within. The “Arsenal of Freedom” becomes a self-licking ice cream cone – an industry that exists to sustain itself, constantly in need of new enemies to justify its existence.
Conclusion: Rejecting the Fantasy
The vision of an America that unleashes its “battlefield power” upon the world is a dangerous fantasy. It is illogical because it mistakes destruction for creation. It is ahistorical because it ignores the graveyards of every empire that walked this path. It is hypocritical because it is championed by those who have never had to pay war’s personal price.
This is the rhetoric of a simpleton who believes the world is a simple place. It is a clear and present danger to global stability and to the soul of the nation itself. We must reject this folly and champion the true, difficult work of building a world that does not require such an “arsenal” to be free. Our future depends on it.
Loading up or flying planes to Israel with tons of weapons that have already killed over 100,000 Palestinians. Any service member doing that is guilty of assisting genocide…the worst crime any servicemember can commit.
Loading up or flying planes bombing small, unarmed boats near Venezuela. This is premeditated mass murder of unknown persons. US makes sure all the boaters are killed so no record of their innocence is retained. Every one of the hundred or more boaters killed in 20 such sinkings emanated from military orders that were illegal and should have been resisted.
The US military is not content with illegal orders to support Israeli genocide in Gaza and obliterating small unarmed boats off Venezuela. Their Commander In Chief Trump has ordered 100 bombing strikes on imagined bad guys in Somalia this year. Does even one American in a million believe the lies emanating from Trump’s military that this mass murder in Somalia is crucial to protect the Homeland. Orders to relentlessly bomb a pitifully poor country 7,800 miles from America, posing no threat whatsoever, are illegal and should be disobeyed.
Granted its not easy to risk banishment from service, possibly even being imprisoned for disobeying these illegal orders. But one service member took such resistance to heroic heights. In February 2024 U.S. Air Force serviceman Aaron Bushnell set himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. to protest US support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Refusing to obey illegal orders to commit premeditated murder is the least that patriotic service members can do to end Uncle Sam’s worldwide killing rampage. We should commend the 6 members of Congress for reminding and supporting them to do that.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL
Steve Barwick |Chair, Nuclear Education Trust, 25 November 2025
The Nuclear Education Trust has also released a report on this topic you can access here: Stepping Back from the Brink
The world today stands closer to nuclear catastrophe than at any point since the end of the Cold War. Conflicts involving nuclear-armed states (the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel) in Europe, the Middle East and South Asia, alongside rising tensions in East Asia, could all too easily escalate to a nuclear confrontation. Meanwhile, key arms control treaties have collapsed, and most nuclear powers, including the UK, are modernising their nuclear arsenals. Against this perilous backdrop, what could the UK do to help lead the world back from the brink?
The myths of tactical nuclear weapons and limited nuclear war
So-called “tactical” nuclear weapons (TNWs) are ones deployed to arenas of conflict or tension, such as those Russia has deployed to Belarus, and those the US has sited across five European NATO member states, with the UK, as of July 2025, reportedly now the sixth. Whilst these weapons can have relatively low explosive yields, the impact of their use would be anything but small. For example, the US B61-12 bombs can deliver explosive yields of up to 50 kilotons. This is several times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Any use of nuclear weapons, at whatever scale or size, would likely have very severe military as well as humanitarian and environmental consequences. Even a single detonation involving a relatively low-yield nuclear bomb could trigger uncontrollable escalation. National leaders faced with the ensuing chaos and fear of a completely new type of crisis would have no reliable way to contain events.
The fraying of the nuclear taboo
For decades, restraint regarding the use of nuclear weapons was maintained by the “nuclear taboo” — a shared global understanding that nuclear weapons are not legitimate tools of warfare. That taboo is eroding. For example, President Vladimir Putin’s threats to use nuclear weapons during the Russia-Ukraine war reintroduced nuclear brinkmanship into mainstream political discourse.
Russia’s actions are widely condemned, but only China has made a commitment never to use nuclear weapons first. The nuclear doctrines of the US, UK, France, Russia, Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan all allow for first use under certain conditions. This collective ambiguity increases the risk of miscalculation and normalises threatening nuclear rhetoric.
A dangerous drift: Eroding treaties, escalating tensions
The collapse of key nuclear arms control agreements between the US and Russia — notably the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019 — has removed a vital guardrail that had at least banned ground-based “tactical” missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km, such as the Cruise and SS20 Missiles. However, it is important to note that “battlefield” nuclear weapons – with a shorter range and often deployed from sea or air were never banned
History offers important lessons on how these dangerous trends can be reversed. The Cuban Missile Crisis, the moment where the world came closest to nuclear war, demonstrated that diplomacy and mutual understanding — not military brinkmanship — are the only reliable paths to peace.
During the Cold War, the deployment of thousands of nuclear weapons in Europe brought humanity perilously close to disaster and also ignited a powerful civil society movement that demanded a different course: nuclear disarmament. The subsequent agreement of the INF Treaty in 1987, which eliminated a whole class of nuclear weapons and set the stage for several multilateral arms control and confidence and security-building measures, was a landmark achievement.
Rebuilding cooperation on nuclear arms control and disarmament
Now is the time for Russia to agree to a ceasefire and take part in good-faith negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, alongside all key participants in the conflict. In addition, Russia and the US should refrain from deploying TNWs and instead negotiate a legally binding treaty to eliminate them, complete with robust verification measures.
The nuclear powers — particularly the US, Russia and China — should also:
Reaffirm the nuclear taboo through joint declarations rejecting nuclear warfighting;
Commit to follow international law regarding the threat or use of force;
Renew and strengthen arms control and disarmament agreements, such as the New START Treaty, or at least maintain its limits after expiration;
Address the root causes of conflict, such as territorial disputes and economic inequality, including through sustained diplomacy.
These are challenging steps, but there is no other path to rebuilding stability. Even in the Cold War’s darkest moments, dialogue, arms-control mechanisms and crisis communication channels helped avert catastrophe. This way forward must not be lost in the fog of war preparations.
The UK’s critical role: From nuclear proliferator to peace broker
As Chair of the group of five ‘official’ nuclear weapon states in the run-up to the 2026 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the UK occupies a unique position, both as a nuclear possessor and a potential bridge between the superpowers and non-nuclear weapon states. Yet current British policy jeopardises that potentially positive role. There are four practical measures the UK should take to support strategic stability and demonstrate global leadership:
Reject nuclear sharing and prioritise transparency
The UK should not join NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement, and thus not acquire F-35A aircraft or host US B61-12 bombs. Parliamentary and civil society scrutiny of nuclear deployments and procurement must increase through Select Committee inquiries and more mainstream media interest.
Reinvigorate global diplomacy
The UK should support high-level diplomacy among the nuclear powers to revive dialogue on arms control, disarmament and conflict prevention. As chair of the P5 process, the UK should urge that crisis stability between the major powers and the avoidance of arms races are prioritised.
Adopt a no-first-use policy
A commitment never to use nuclear weapons first would reduce escalation risks. Coupled with assurances not to threaten or use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states, this stance would align the UK with NPT agreements to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons and encourage reciprocal restraint from others.
Engage with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)
It is time that the eyes of the world are reopened to the devastating effects of nuclear weapons. The UK should support the United Nations panel examining “the physical effects and societal consequences of a nuclear war on a local, regional and planetary scale”; and attend TPNW meetings as an observer, demonstrating concern and an openness to dialogue.
2026: A pivotal year
The year 2026 will be critical. It marks both the scheduled expiry of New START — the last remaining cap on US and Russian strategic arsenals — and the next NPT Review Conference. The message is unambiguous: continuing along the path of rearmament and confrontation invites catastrophe. The UK, as one of NATO’s more influential members, has a rare opportunity to steer policy toward restraint and away from the futile pursuit of “nuclear advantage.” To seize it, Britain must make bold choices — reject nuclear sharing, embrace transparency, champion diplomacy, and reaffirm the principle that nuclear weapons must never be used.
The European Leadership Network itself as an institution holds no formal policy positions. The opinions articulated above represent the views of the authors rather than the European Leadership Network or its members. The ELN aims to encourage debates that will help develop Europe’s capacity to address the pressing foreign, defence, and security policy challenges of our time, to further its charitable purposes.
BRITAIN would need permission from the United States in order to use its nuclear deterrent, experts say, as the government goes forward with a £71 billion purchase of nuke-carrying US jets.
And increasing Britain’s nuclear arms stock will tie the country to President Donald Trump’s foreign policy goals, which disarmament campaigners say could bring us closer to the brink of disaster.
Speaking at an event organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in London on Saturday, experts, campaigners, and politicians condemned Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s pledge to buy at least 12 F15-A jets.
The planes, capable of carrying so-called tactical nuclear bombs, were not “properly costed” when the government first laid out the deal, only later revealing that their price was some £71 billion, CND general secretary Sophie Bolt said.
Describing Sir Keir’s “mad scramble” to increase spending after Mr Trump requested Nato members increase arms expenditure to 5 per cent of their GDP, Ms Bolt said: “There is a blank-cheque approach to nuclear weapons.
“There was no real proper costing for how much this would be. The health sector is constantly having to save here, save there. Whereas the [Ministry of Defence] will later just say: ‘Oh sorry, we’ve overspent.’
“This will not make us safer. They are US fighter jets. All the money is going to the US. And the planes launch US nuclear bombs, so that means they are basically under Nato command, meaning they are under the US nuclear umbrella of Nato.
“It’s the US that decides when and where these bombs will be dropped. And we are concerned that Trump is going to be gung-ho for these bombs.”
Discussing the planes’ so-called tactical nuclear bombs, she said: “They make the threat of nuclear war being made much more likely and the British government is totally at the heart of this.”
Okopi Ajonye, a researcher at Nuclear Information Service (NIS), agreed that there were many issues with the F35-A deal, saying the government “rushed into the decision” to buy the jets.
He said: “Acquiring these aircrafts was to show that the UK is contributing to NATO. That’s actually what drove this decision.”
Outlining the link between the genocide in Gaza and the campaign against nukes, Palestine Solidarity Campaign director Ben Jamal said the British public should “resist the process to renormalise Israel” after the October ceasefire.
And Your Party co-leader Jeremy Corbyn said: “The new nuclear weapons being promoted and proposed by the UK are intrinsically dangerous: the more weapons there are, the more danger there is that they will be used.
“Instead we should invest the funds into housing, health and education — and increasing, not cutting overseas spending.”
n the wake of the United Nations Security Council rubber-stamping Donald Trump’s plans for Gaza — including the creation of a so-called “board of peace” and a militarized “international stabilization force” — the very notion of rebuilding is slipping through the cracks, overshadowed by what is framed as the more urgent need to keep the peace in place. But peace manufactured this way is nothing but an expansion and deepening of the humanitarian crisis already unfolding.
Gaza City was already in a perpetual state of destruction and rebuilding long before the current genocide erupted. It has endured relentless aggression that reduced residential homes to rubble, wiped out entire neighborhoods, and massacred civilians. Five wars — 2008, 2012, 2014, 2021, and May 2023 — brutally dismantled Gaza’s infrastructure, economy, agriculture, education, and culture, leaving behind a consumed cycle of devastation.
Yet each time, once the bombardment stopped, reconstruction began, even if it was in a slow rhythm. Gaza would rise again — recovering, thriving even, in forms more vibrantly echoing and picturesque than before. But this genocide has unleashed an unprecedented scale of destruction, so vast and unrelenting that stumbling upon an intact home today feels like witnessing one of life’s seven miracles………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://truthout.org/articles/over-92-percent-of-homes-in-gaza-are-rubble-how-do-we-even-start-rebuilding/
In 1948 the US launched an airlift of food and supplies to keep Berliners fed and healthy during the Soviet blockade of allies from Berlin. During the airlift’s 15 months, US planes delivered over 1,800,000 tons of life sustaining material…a humanitarian gesture for the ages.
Twenty-six months ago the US embarked on another airlift. Alas, this one was not humanitarian. It was to further Israeli genocide that has largely obliterated Gaza’s 139 square miles. Even with the not so peaceful ceasefire, America keeps airlifting in supplies to keep killing and degrading hapless Palestinians trapped in the ruins. Over 300 slaughtered and 900 wounded since ceasefire began 45 days ago. Israel just received planeload number 1,000. Along with 150 cargo ships, the US air/sea lift has poured into Israel over 120,000 tons of advanced munitions, weapons, armored vehicles, medical equipment, communications systems, and personal protective equipment.
Besides destroying Gaza, US war material supports Israel’s destruction of Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Yemen, West Bank; even bombing imagined bad guys in US ally Qatar.
Whew! That takes a lot of US treasure that could be used to provide health care for all, end food insufficiency for 50 million sufferers, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, convert to green energy, among other critically needed uplifting of the commons. How much treasure squandered on all that death and destruction? Over $21 Billion for Gaza alone with another $12 billion for Israel’s other bombing and terror campaigns.
Back in 1948 the beleaguered Berliners proclaimed the US Berlin airlift heaven sent. Seventy-seven years on, desperately starving and sick Palestinians not yet killed under American bombs dropped from US plans view the US genocidal airlift as arising from the lowest level of hell.
I go through Trump’s 28 point plan line by line and talk about the need for negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to start
Ukrainian media has now published what it says is the draft Trump 28-point peace plan for Ukraine. I decided to go through it line by line and offer my thoughts on the prospects for negotitions going forward.
What is clear, first, is that the draft is merely a starting point for negotiations. Ukraine absolutely needs to be engaged bilaterally with Russia in the hard work of the negotiation process, and that depends on Zelensky finally committing to it.
I feel he is in a weaker position to resist US efforts now he is mired in a corruption scandal at home. But I still feel European leaders wants to keep him stuck in the permanent loop, in which Ukraine needs peace but doesn’t want it, whereas for Russia, there is a desire for peace but no urgent need to settle.
I consider the draft document to be a helpful first start but will need a lot of work from both sides. Some of the clauses are specific to Russia and Ukraine, whereas some reach more widely into the international community, which makes for a confusion mish mash. Some conditions, military neutrality for Ukraine in political, will see off Zelensky’s hopes of reelection as President, after the war, in my view, which he will know and understand all too well.
A Washington Post story headlined the “White House Blew Past Legal Concerns in Deadly Strikes on Drug Boats,” reported that “There is no actual threat justifying self defense — there are not organized armed groups seeking to kill Americans.” The Post quoted a former senior official saying, “The question is, is it legal just to kill the guy if he’s not threatening to kill you … There are people who are simply uncomfortable with the president just declaring we’re at war with drug traffickers.”
For a more critical perspective on Venezuela, we turn to Venezuelanalysis.com and their conversation with Atilio Borón (Borón is an Argentine sociologist, political scientist, professor, and essayist, he holds a doctorate in Political Science from Harvard University), Their conversation examines the administration’s military expansion in the country. Some key takeaways include:
“Venezuela remains a strategic target … global oil markets are more strategic than ever, and geological surveys confirm that Venezuela holds the largest proven oil reserves in the world … greater even than those of Saudi Arabia!”
“Latin America has long been described as a continent in dispute, and today that dispute is sharper than ever. … What we are witnessing now, however, is an open display of brute military force.”
“This is the largest imperialist air–naval military buildup in our region since the October 1962 Missile Crisis.”
“New actors have emerged with decisive weight, fundamentally reshaping geopolitics … China is here to stay.”
I also recommend checking out this graphic also from Venezuelanalysis.com — it details the scale of weaponry in the region:
Here’s the reporting from CNN on the situation, including Trump’s discussion about attacking Mexico, with a chilling interview at the end between Jake Tapper and GOP House member Carlos Gimenez.
From yesterday, former ambassador James Story discussed the situation. I’ll add that it still doesn’t pass the smell test. It feels like we’re being pushed toward a conflict — framed through what the former ambassador called Venezuela’s relationship with our “strategic competitors.” At this point in world history, can’t we find a way to get along? Naive or not, I don’t want the world to melt down.
Of course I’m posting this video from a mainstream source, but where are the questions for our leaders and former leaders that push back — even slightly — against the status quo narrative? Honestly, it brings me back to an old classroom discussion about nuclear war: If a nation is treated as an enemy, or labeled a “strategic competitor,” and you make it clear you want them weakened or destroyed, why wouldn’t they stockpile weapons? Or, more simply put: if your neighbor hates you and has an axe, maybe you go get an axe too.
I guess I’m still wishful enough to hope that the United States could be the bigger person and put the axe down — especially when, in our case, we have the Fifth Fleet. Here is former Ambassador Story:
nuclear-news 