Explainer: Why boots on Iranian soil would become strategic catastrophe for US

By Yousef Ramazani

As the American-Israeli aggression against Iran enters its fourth week, with none of the stated objectives materializing, the specter of a ground invasion has moved from whispered contingency to urgent operational planning.

However, as Iranian armed forces have repeatedly warned, any American soldier setting foot on Iranian territory would step into a meticulously prepared kill zone designed to inflict losses unseen since World War II.

The unprovoked and illegal aggression that began on February 28, 2026 – amid indirect nuclear talks – has exposed a fundamental miscalculation in American strategy.

Despite weeks of unbridled and indiscriminate aerial bombardment and claims of having struck over 7,000 targets, Iran’s retaliatory capabilities remain undiminished, it continues to inflict heavy blows on the enemy, its leadership structure has decentralized into autonomous divisions, and the Axis of Resistance continues to strike US assets across the region.

As American Marine expeditionary units plan to converge on the Persian Gulf and the 82nd Airborne Division stands at readiness, military planners in Washington confront an uncomfortable reality: air power alone cannot achieve desired goals, yet a ground invasion would trigger a cascade of catastrophic consequences that no amount of American firepower can contain.

Iran has made its position emphatically clear: ground aggression constitutes a red line, and any crossing would be met with surprises that would leave the United States and its Israeli ally unable to remove their soldiers’ coffins from Iranian soil.

How is Iran's geography of attrition built for defense?

Iran is not Iraq. This single geographic fact forms the foundation of any analysis of a potential ground invasion. Spanning 1.65 million square kilometers, Iran is four times the size of Iraq, with terrain that offers natural defensive advantages unlike anything American forces faced in 2003.

The Zagros Mountain range, running from northwest to southeast along the Iraqi border, presents a formidable barrier to any mechanized advance from the west.

These mountains channel invading forces into predictable avenues of approach – precisely where Iranian defenders have concentrated their anti-armor capabilities for decades.

Beyond the rough terrain, the sheer scale of occupation would dwarf any previous American experience. Iran’s population exceeds 93 million people – more than two and a half times the population of Iraq at the time of the 2003 invasion. Even a conservative counterinsurgency ratio would require hundreds of thousands of American troops to maintain order across the country’s urban centers.

The logistical apparatus required to support such a force would be among the largest in military history, and every gallon of fuel, every meal, every artillery shell would have to travel through supply lines under constant multi-domain attack from the moment they entered Iranian territory.

How is Iran’s anti-access defense architecture built?

Iran has spent more than four decades constructing a defensive system designed specifically to counter any external aggression, including that from the US or its proxies.

This integrated anti-access and area denial architecture transforms the Persian Gulf region into a high-risk environment for any foreign hostile force.

The system operates in layers, each designed to complicate an adversary’s operational calculus and impose costs at every stage of an invasion.

Before any ground invasion could begin, American forces would have to contend with Iran’s extensive unmanned aerial vehicle surveillance network.

Platforms like the Mohajer-6, with 15 hours of endurance, provide persistent intelligence coverage across the Persian Gulf, tracking naval movements and monitoring ground force concentrations while transmitting targeting data to strike platforms in near real-time.

This reconnaissance layer compresses reaction time from minutes to seconds, allowing defensive forces to engage threats before they approach Iranian shores.

Any American ground invasion would require air supremacy to protect advancing forces from aerial attack.

Yet Iran’s layered air defense network, centered on the islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb in the Persian Gulf, has been designed to deny precisely that.

These islands, described in military literature as Iran’s “unsinkable aircraft carriers,” function as multi-mission platforms hosting surveillance systems, air defense batteries, and offensive strike capabilities.

What makes amphibious operations risky?

For any ground invasion, the ability to land forces by sea would be essential. Yet Iran’s anti-ship missile arsenal makes amphibious operations in the Persian Gulf extraordinarily risky.

The Qader anti-ship cruise missile, with a range exceeding 300 kilometers and a 165-kilogram penetrating warhead, flies at Mach 0.9 in sea-skimming mode, evading radar detection until seconds before impact.

Deployed on mobile coastal launchers across Abu Musa and the Iranian coastline, it can strike targets deep into the Strait of Hormuz.

Complementing Qader are the Khalij Fars anti-ship ballistic missile, with optical seeker for terminal guidance, and the Hormuz family of anti-radiation missiles specifically designed to target the radar emissions of Aegis-equipped warships.

The Zolfaghar Basir extends this threat envelope to 700 kilometers, pushing potential engagement zones well into the Gulf of Oman.

At the apex of this capability are the Fattah-1 and Fattah-2 hypersonic missiles, capable of speeds reaching Mach 15 and extreme maneuverability, designed to defeat even the most advanced missile defense systems.

Beyond conventional missiles, the IRGC Navy operates hundreds of small, fast attack craft capable of swarm tactics against larger warships.

These speedboats, armed with rockets and missiles, can attack from multiple directions simultaneously to overwhelm defensive systems.

Below the surface, Iran’s Ghadir-class midget submarines, optimized for the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf, can lie in wait on the seabed to ambush passing vessels with torpedoes.

Iran also possesses one of the largest naval mine inventories in the region, numbering in the thousands, including advanced influence mines triggered by a ship’s magnetic field or acoustic signature.

Even the suspicion of a minefield in the Strait of Hormuz would force the US Navy into a slow, dangerous mine countermeasure campaign, all conducted under the umbrella of Iranian coastal missiles.

What makes national mobilization and guerrilla warfare important?

A ground invasion would also confront the reality that Iran’s military forces are not designed to fight a conventional war – they are designed to make any occupation unsustainable.

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), which operates in parallel to Iran’s regular military, has structured itself around an asymmetric warfare doctrine.

Large paramilitary organizations, including the Basij force, can mobilize hundreds of thousands of fighters trained for guerrilla operations in cities and mountainous terrain.

Even if American forces manage to overcome Iran’s conventional army, these irregular forces could continue fighting for months and years.

The IRGC has decentralized its command structure into 31 autonomous divisions, each granted significant operational independence – a structure that makes decapitation strikes ineffective and ensures that resistance can continue even if central command structures are disrupted.

The experience of the 12-day imposed war in June 2025 demonstrated Iran’s willingness to absorb attacks while continuing to fight and resist against external aggression.

Despite no-holds-barred, sustained bombardment, Iranian air defenses remained operational, and retaliatory strikes continued throughout the conflict.

The country’s leadership, now under Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Mojtaba Khamenei following the assassination of Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has shown no inclination toward surrender, and the Axis of Resistance forces across the region remain committed to the fight.

What if supply lines come under constant attack?

Any ground invasion of Iran would require securing supply lines through neighboring countries – lines that would be under constant attack from Iranian missiles, drones, and allied forces across the region.

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has already demonstrated its ability to strike American logistics assets, downing a KC-135 tanker aircraft over western Iraq earlier in March.

Iranian missile attacks have damaged five additional KC-135 tankers parked at an airfield in Saudi Arabia, demonstrating their efficacy.

The US maintains approximately 50,000 troops across the West Asia region, concentrated at bases that would serve as logistical hubs for any ground invasion, making them primary targets for Iranian retaliatory strikes.

The geography of the Persian Gulf exacerbates this vulnerability. The Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil passes, is just 30 kilometers wide at its narrowest point.

In such confined waters, the maneuvering room for large supply vessels is severely limited, and their proximity to Iranian shores places them squarely within range of virtually every system in Iran’s inventory.

Iranian military sources have warned that any aggression against Kharg Island would lead to the destruction of coastal areas across the region, with Dubai and Abu Dhabi potentially not remaining merely in the initial stages of such an attack.

What makes Kharg Island a trap for the enemy?

Among the scenarios being considered by American planners, the seizure of Kharg Island, the oil terminal handling 90 percent of Iran’s crude exports, has emerged as a particularly dangerous option.

Military analysis indicates that securing Kharg would require a battalion-sized force of approximately 800 to 1,000 troops. Yet the island sits only 20 kilometers off the Iranian coast, placing it squarely under Iranian weapon systems.

A small garrison would be difficult to reinforce and resupply for the invaders, potentially turning the island into a high-casualty liability rather than a strategic asset.

Iranian military sources have made clear that any attack on Kharg Island would be met with a response unprecedented in the 23 days of war to date.

“If the US carries out its threats regarding military aggression on Kharg Island,” a military source told Iranian media, “it will definitely face a response that is unprecedented.”

Last week’s strikes on the island, carried out from the UAE by the US-Israeli war coalition, saw Iran targeting facilities in the UAE and other Persian Gulf countries.

Insecurity in other straits, including the Bab al-Mandab Strait and the Red Sea, would become one of the options of the Resistance Front, and the situation would become much more complicated than it is today for the Americans.

Iranian officials have also warned that oil production could be temporarily disrupted, that Iran would set fire to all facilities in the region, and that the Americans would have no way to protect Kharg while suffering losses unseen since World War II.

Why is access to nuclear material impossible?

The most ambitious scenario – sending special operations forces deep into Iran to seize stockpiles of highly enriched uranium – would require an operation of staggering complexity.

Such a mission would require not only elite operators but a brigade-sized security force of 3,000 to 4,000 troops to secure the perimeter while nuclear material was extracted.

Secured locations like Natanz and Isfahan lie several hundred miles inside Iran, in open plains with no natural terrain protection.

The operation would require sustained air cover, dedicated combat air patrols, extensive intelligence and surveillance assets, and the logistical capacity to support troops on the ground for an extended period.

Approximately 1,000 pounds of 60 percent highly enriched uranium would need to be packaged, moved, and transported to a secure location, a lethal material requiring specialized handling that only the International Atomic Energy Agency is equipped to manage.

What has Iran told Trump over ground invasion plan?

Iranian military officials have made clear that a ground invasion would cross a red line with consequences far beyond anything the United States has yet experienced.

“A ground attack on Iranian soil is one of our red lines,” a military source stated, “and just as we had a surprise against every enemy operation, we will show it again in this case also.”

“Iran is ready, so that if the terrorist Trump makes a mistake in this regard, the response will come in such a way that he will not even be able to remove the coffins of his soldiers from Iranian land,” it added.

The IRGC has stated its position with clarity: “The soldiers of Islam are waiting with eagerness to see and blow a severe slap on the American carrier in the depths of the battlefield, and are fully prepared to give the American marines a close-up view of naval surprises.”

Having tested the battlefield for more than eight years during the war Western-backed Ba'athist Iraq imposed on Iran during the 1980s, Iranian forces know their terrain and their capabilities.

For the United States, the choice is not simply whether to invade but whether the objectives of the war justify the costs that invasion would entail.

Iran’s military doctrine has been shaped by one overriding imperative: to make those costs so high that no American president can sustain public support for a ground war.

NYT: Trump should Declare Iran War Goals Met, Seek Secret Talks

By Al Ahed Staff, Agencies

Further military action by United States President Donald Trump could deepen a strategic “quagmire” for the US, which is already trapped in a dangerous and escalating war with Iran, American journalist Nicholas Kristof has warned.

Writing in The New York Times, Kristof argues that the debate over whether the war will become a quagmire “misses the point”, asserting that “Trump and America are already in one”, as the war risks spiraling economically and militarily.

Kristof highlights the strategic leverage Iran holds over global energy flows, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. He warns that even if Washington halts its aggression, Tehran could continue disrupting maritime traffic, thus driving up oil prices and straining global supply chains.

The Iranian leadership has set steep conditions for ending the war. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has insisted that any resolution would require recognition of Iran’s legitimate rights, compensation, and guarantees against future attacks, demands Kristof suggests may be negotiable but reflect Tehran’s hardened stance.

In the two previous rounds of negotiations, US officials undermined trust with their Iranian counterparts, culminating in surprise military aggression against the country. On February 28, a joint US- “Israeli” aggression martyred Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei, and struck multiple sites across the country. The attacks also devastated civilian areas, including a deadly strike on a girls’ school in Minab, where more than 160 civilians, most of them children, were killed.

Since then, US- “Israeli” strikes have continued to target senior Iranian officials, as well as critical civilian infrastructure, expanding to include vital facilities such as desalination plants and key gas and energy networks.

The columnist expresses concern that Trump may attempt to “extricate himself by escalating," pointing to the deployment of US forces and discussions around usurping strategic Iranian assets such as Kharg Island.

Citing calls from figures like Lindsey Graham, Kristof notes that targeting Iran’s oil infrastructure could devastate its economy but raises critical questions about the aftermath of such operations, including the prospect of prolonged occupation and sustained Iranian retaliation.

He further warns that the war could expand regionally to include Iranian allies, such as the Ansarullah movement in Yemen, potentially disrupting additional maritime routes and energy corridors.

Kristof argues that continued military pressure may accelerate Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, rather than deter it. He suggests that past US actions have inadvertently strengthened adversaries, drawing parallels to decisions that contributed to the Vietnam War escalation.

“The threat is real,” he writes, but “doubling down on this failed war may just carry us deeper into this quagmire.”

As a way forward, Kristof proposes that Trump declare victory and pivot toward diplomacy.

"Trump should declare that his war goals in Iran have been achieved, making him the greatest wartime leader since Churchill;

Then he should lean on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of "Israel" to also end hostilities against Hezbollah as well as against Iran.

The White House would then plead with Oman to get Iran to return to the negotiating table for secret talks."

He acknowledges that any deal would be imperfect but argues that a negotiated pause, particularly on nuclear enrichment, would be preferable to a prolonged and intensifying war.

Ultimately, Kristof concludes that while no outcome is guaranteed, continuing the current trajectory risks leaving “everyone a loser”, urging a strategic shift away from military escalation toward a political resolution.

The Gulf at the Crossroads: Power, Dependency, and the Illusion of Protection

Salim Mohamed Badat

A Summit Born Out of Crisis.

The recent emergency summit convened by the Gulf states marks a defining moment in modern Middle Eastern geopolitics. What is unfolding is not merely a reaction to a military escalation involving Iran and American assets, it is the exposure of a long-standing reality: the strategic fragility and political dependency of the Gulf monarchies.

The Illusion of Protection.

For decades, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations have operated under a security umbrella provided by the United States. Their wealth bought them advanced weaponry, their geography made them indispensable, and their loyalty ensured continued Western protection. 

American military bases scattered across their lands, from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE, symbolized a pact: oil and allegiance in exchange for security.

But today, that pact is visibly unraveling.

A Message from Iran

The recent Iranian strike targeting American interests on Gulf soil has shaken the very foundation of this arrangement. 

These were not symbolic attacks; they were calculated, precise, and deeply strategic. Iran did not merely target infrastructure, it sent a message. A message that the battlefield is no longer distant, and that the Gulf states are not neutral observers but active participants by virtue of hosting American forces.

America’s Shifting Role.

What makes this moment even more critical is the shifting posture of the United States itself. Under the leadership of Donald Trump, Washington’s tone has changed from protector to provocateur. Rather than shielding its Gulf allies, America has reportedly urged them to take a more direct role, encouraging them to align openly in a confrontation against Iran alongside Israel. This demand has placed the Gulf rulers in an impossible position.

Fear, Realism, and Strategic Limits.

On one hand, their political survival has long depended on American backing. On the other, they are acutely aware of Iran’s military capabilities. Iran is not Iraq. It is not Libya. It is a deeply entrenched regional power with asymmetric warfare capabilities, missile technology, and a network of regional alliances stretching across Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

The reluctance of the Gulf states to engage directly in war is not born out of diplomacy, it is born out of fear and realism.

Escalation and the Shadow of Soleimani.

Recent developments have intensified this tension. Reports suggest that attacks linked to American bases in Saudi Arabia have targeted Iranian gas installations. If accurate, this represents a dangerous escalation, effectively dragging Saudi Arabia into direct confrontation. From Iran’s perspective, any state facilitating or hosting attacks becomes a legitimate target.

It is within this charged atmosphere that the legacy of Qasem Soleimani continues to loom large, symbolizing Iran’s doctrine of forward defense and its willingness to confront adversaries beyond its borders.

Selective Outrage and Sectarian Blindness.

Yet, amid these developments, another narrative has emerged, one driven by sectarian rhetoric rather than principled analysis.

Certain sectarian Sunni voices have rushed to condemn Iran’s actions, framing them as a betrayal of the Gulf states and, by extension, a betrayal of the Muslim world. 

But this selective outrage reveals a deeper inconsistency. Where was this moral indignation when those same Gulf states opened their lands to American military bases? When they allowed themselves to become staging grounds for foreign power projection in the heart of the Muslim world?

Is that not a betrayal of a far higher order?

These critics remain silent on the long standing alliances between Gulf regimes and the United States, alliances that have, directly aligned them with Israeli strategic interests. 

They fail to acknowledge that this very military infrastructure now being targeted by Iran exists because of choices made by Gulf leadership.

The Silence on Palestine.

Even more glaring is their silence on Palestine. For decades, the people of Palestine have endured occupation, displacement, and violence, yet the Gulf states, despite their immense wealth and influence, have done little beyond rhetoric. No meaningful protection, no decisive intervention, no unified stance that could alter the reality on the ground. And yet, it is Iran, that has positioned itself as a vocal and material supporter of resistance movements. This contradiction cannot be ignored.

A Theological Crisis: The Myth of Neutrality.

It is also necessary, at this critical juncture, to confront a deeper moral and theological question, one that goes beyond politics and enters the realm of īman, conscience, and accountability before Allah.

For many across the Muslim world, this conflict is not merely geopolitical. It is perceived as part of a wider struggle against systems of domination, occupation, and sustained injustice, systems that have, for decades, shaped the suffering of the region, particularly through the combined influence of the United States and Israel.

And yet, despite this, a large segment of the Sunni discourse continues to retreat into a position of convenient neutrality.

We hear it often: “We do not take sides.”

Or worse: “Let them destroy one another.”

But this is not a neutral position. It is a theological and moral stance, one that must be examined in the light of revelation.

Allah speaks with precision about such a condition: “Wavering between them, belonging neither to these nor to those…”

(Surah An-Nisā’ 4:143)

The classical scholars described this state as one of nifaq (hypocrisy), not necessarily hypocrisy of belief, but hypocrisy of stance: the inability or unwillingness to stand firmly when truth and falsehood become manifest.

No More Comfortable Ambiguity.

This “middle ground” is not the balanced justice that Islam calls for. It is not the wasatiyyah (principled moderation) praised in the Quran. Rather, it is hesitation born from fear, confusion, or attachment to worldly considerations.

And the reality is this: in moments of great trial, neutrality is rarely neutral. When oppression is visible, when alliances are clear, when power structures are exposed, remaining silent or indifferent does not place one outside the conflict. It situates one, whether consciously or not, within the existing order.

A Call to Moral Clarity.

Islam does not demand blind loyalty to any nation state. But it does demand consistency in truth, courage in speech, and integrity in stance. One cannot condemn aggression in one instance while excusing or ignoring it in another based on alliances, sect, or political convenience.

The time for ambiguity has passed.

The Muslim world, particularly its Sunni masses, must move beyond inherited narratives, state-sponsored rhetoric, and sectarian reflexes. It must return to principles, justice (adl), truth (ḥaqq), and accountability before Allah.

Because in the end, this is not about choosing between nations. It is about choosing where one stands when oppression and power collide.

The Economic and Strategic Fallout.

The implications of the current crisis remain profound. Iran’s potential retaliation against Saudi oil and gas infrastructure would not only destabilize the Kingdom but send shockwaves through the global economy. The Gulf’s greatest strength, its energy resources, could quickly become its greatest vulnerability. Refineries, pipelines, and export terminals are far more exposed than fortified military installations. This is the paradox the Gulf now faces: immense wealth, but fragile security.

An Alliance Built on Uncertainty.

The emergency summit, therefore, is not just about strategy, it is about survival. There is growing discussion of a unified Gulf military pact aimed at countering Iran. On paper, such an alliance appears formidable. In reality, it is riddled with contradictions. 

These states lack unified command structures, have differing threat perceptions, and remain heavily reliant on external expertise and logistics.

More importantly, their populations are not aligned with such a war. The leadership may consider alignment with the United States and Israel, but the streets tell a different story. There is deep-rooted anger, not only towards Israel’s actions in Palestine but also towards the perception that Gulf rulers are complicit in broader Western agendas. 

Any overt alliance against Iran, especially alongside Israel, would risk internal dissent and further erode legitimacy.

The End of an Era.

What we are witnessing is the collapse of a carefully maintained illusion. The illusion that wealth guarantees security. The illusion that foreign powers ensure sovereignty. The illusion that proximity to power shields one from its consequences.

The Gulf states are now “naked” in the geopolitical sense, exposed, vulnerable, and forced to confront realities they have long avoided.

A Defining Moment in History.

This moment could redefine the region.

If the Gulf chooses confrontation, it risks becoming the primary battlefield in a war it does not control. If it chooses restraint, it must rethink its alliances, recalibrate its dependencies, and perhaps even reconsider its role in the broader Muslim world.

Either way, the era of comfortable neutrality is over. The summit will produce statements, perhaps even agreements. But beneath the diplomatic language lies a deeper truth: the balance of power in the Middle East is shifting, and the Gulf states are no longer shielded from its consequences.

History does not wait for those who hesitate. And in this moment of crisis, hesitation itself may prove to be the most dangerous choice of all.

Salim Mohamed Badat

Writer exploring the intersection of faith , politics and justice.

The Senator for “Israel”: A Crusade of Faith and Fire

By Mohamad Hammoud

Throughout history, individuals have emerged to justify mass killing in the name of religion to fulfill perceived prophecies and obey a divine will. Much like Daesh [Arabic Acronym for the terrorist “ISIS” / “ISIL” group] , which utilized a unique and violent interpretation of sacred texts to justify the elimination of all who opposed their ideology, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham has built a career on similar foundations. Throughout his decades in Washington, Graham has consistently advocated for military violence in the Middle East to eradicate those who oppose the state of “Israel.” By framing geopolitical conflicts as holy wars, he has adopted a logic that mirrors extremist organizations, where the slaughter of adversaries is not merely a strategic goal but a religious necessity. This ideological rigidity suggests a worldview where human life is secondary to the fulfillment of a theological agenda.

The Psychology of Overcompensation

At the center of Graham’s public persona is a tension that many critics believe drives his extremism. On one hand, he presents himself as a devout Christian who views global foreign policy through a lens of absolute moral and religious certainty. On the other, his personal life has long been the subject of intense speculation regarding his status as a gay man, creating a duality that contrasts sharply with the conservative social values he publicly champions. That gap between who he is and who he performs being may fuel an impulse toward overcompensation. The louder and more radical his public stances, the less room there is for anyone to look inward at the contradictions he carries.

The Language of Justified Slaughter

Graham’s rhetoric makes this alignment with extremist logic impossible to ignore. According to Reuters, he defended the scale of military operations in Gaza by claiming forces were “killing all the right people” – a statement that drew immediate condemnation from human rights organizations, who noted it was nearly indistinguishable from the language ISIS used to justify its massacres. The numbers behind that dismissal are staggering: according to UNICEF data, over 21,289 of those killed in Gaza by early 2026 were children under 18. Calling those deaths the elimination of the “right people” is not political commentary. It is the moral logic of a religious crusader.

Regional Escalation and Regime Change

Graham’s career has also been defined by a relentless push for war with Iran. According to The Associated Press, he has repeatedly called for direct US strikes on Iranian infrastructure and advocated for forced regime change in Tehran. He has encouraged Arab nations to abandon diplomacy and join a military campaign against Iran in the service of “Israel’s” regional dominance. There is no middle ground in his framework – only enemies and allies, a binary that belongs more to religious fundamentalism than to the responsibilities of a sitting US senator.

The Sacrifice of Lebanese Stability

The same pattern extended to Lebanon. According to Al Jazeera, Graham demanded the Lebanese government forcefully disarm Hezbollah – despite clear warnings from regional experts that doing so would trigger a catastrophic civil war. He was willing to burn an entire country to the ground to satisfy an ideological goal. That willingness to sacrifice civilian stability for a singular, dogmatic objective is not a policy position. It is the hallmark of the same extremist movements he claims to oppose.

Divine Mandates and Domestic Neglect

Faith and policy have fused so completely in Graham’s worldview that he treats support for “Israel” as a condition of divine favor. According to NPR, he warned that abandoning “Israel” would mean God would “pull the plug on us” – a statement more suited to a medieval sermon than a Senate floor. Meanwhile, the people he was elected to represent are being left behind. South Carolina consistently ranks near the bottom of the country in healthcare access and educational outcomes, according to US News & World Report. Graham is too busy waging foreign crusades to notice.

A Legacy of Perpetual Conflict

As Graham approaches the end of his career, his legacy is taking shape – and it is not a flattering one. According to The Associated Press, he has tied his political identity to an uncompromising stance on Iran and total alignment with “Israel,” with no room left for the nuance that actual diplomacy requires. What remains is a political persona built on intolerance, religiously-justified violence, and a hunger for perpetual conflict. And at the core of it all, the tension between his public extremism and his private life is not incidental. It may be the very thing that keeps the engine running.

Netanyahu lands Trump in a quagmire as ‘Shock and Awe’ strategy boomerangs in Iran

By Iqbal Jassat

"They promised us in the last war in Iran in June that we destroyed the majority of the infrastructure for the ballistic missiles and the nuclear plan of Iran. Then in nine months, [Iran rebuilt] everything from scratch? I don't understand that. I feel that they are lying to us."

These are the words of Israeli journalist and activist Anat Saragusti, whose apartment building in central Tel Aviv began to shake as she ran to seek shelter from Iranian missiles targeting the city following the US-Israel aggression against Tehran that morning.

The "Shock and Awe" tactic used by the George Bush administration to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq in 2003 rode on the back of a deliberately constructed lie about so-called "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD).

The driving force behind the myth of WMD has been Benjamin Netanyahu.

Almost a quarter century later, the same Zionist leader, who in the interim has had a warrant of arrest issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC), pressured the Trump administration to join him by using all of America's military power and assets to attack Iran.

The number of myths created by him this time varied from "nuclear bomb" to "imminent threat."

However, to the disappointment of Netanyahu and his pedophile buddy Trump, the strategy of "Shock and Awe" has been turned on its head by the Islamic Republic of Iran. It has instead become a strategic instrument in Iran's retaliatory strikes against the Israeli military sites and the US military bases and assets scattered across the region.

The controversy surrounding these lies has resulted in damning questions by lawmakers at a US congressional hearing. Since the unlawful military aggression on Iran in late February, the hearing became the first public briefing on intelligence.

The key question was why the US struck Iran and whether Trump and his war cabinet were aware of potential backlash in the form of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump has advanced many irrational different things, including making wholly contradictory arguments to justify the unjustifiable and illegal war, which featured in the hearing by his intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard.

Appearing alongside the heads of the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, Gabbard declined to answer when asked repeatedly by Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, about whether she had viewed Iran as an imminent threat.

"The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president," she said, passing the buck to Trump, who ordered the war based on lies.

Yet the inescapable fact is that the US bought into Israel’s false claims, attacked Iran and now is desperate to seek an off-ramp to exit an unwinnable war.

Given Netanyahu's criminal record and the multiple lies he has peddled in order to justify the mass slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, hardly anyone outside his Zionist circle believes that Iran was developing nuclear weapons or posed an imminent threat to the US.

Indeed, to add salt to Netanyahu’s self-inflicted wound, hours before the hearings, Joe Kent resigned from his role as director of the national counterterrorism center, saying in a publicly posted resignation letter that Iran had posed "no imminent threat" to the US and criticising Trump for the illegal and unnecessary war.

In addition, US journalist Tucker Carlson insists the war on Iran contradicts the principle of "America First", stating that Israel chose its timing, not the US.

Kent’s resignation is not an anomaly but an alarm: elite dissent is surfacing early because this war is built on deception, observes Ramzy Baroud, editor of Palestine Chronicle.

All the while, in desperation and bitter frustration, Netanyahu has been seeking to pour cold water on widely held public opinion that Israel had influence over Trump's decision to launch the so-called Operation Epic Fury in Iran.

Despite his Hasbara attempts, he has not been able to quell widespread criticism and debates within the US media and intelligentsia over the reasons why the US entered this war in the first place, and the role Israel played in it.

That debate reached a fever pitch with the resignation of Kent, given the fact that he was known to be a longtime Trump ally and veteran of the US special operations community.

The sting in his bite, which Netanyahu cannot cope with, is Kent's statement: "It is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby".

We learn from media reports and from a flurry of social media posts that Kent expanded on his assertions in a subsequent, two-hour-long interview with Carlson, saying that "Israel drove the decision".

He also declared quite emphatically that "Israeli officials were circumventing normal channels to influence US lawmakers to push for war".

Facing these substantially critical charges of subordination to Netanyahu, Trump took to social media to deny previous reporting that the US had prior knowledge of an Israeli attack on Iran's South Pars field - a message which some interpreted as "frustration" by the US president.

What is clear is that Netanyahu has landed Trump in a quagmire.

A dangerous place indeed: like the muddy shoreline of a pond, will Trump be able to climb out? Only time will tell.

Iqbal Jassat is an executive member of the Media Review Network, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Macron Urges World to Return to Reason: War must Stop

By Al Ahed Staff, Agencies

French President Emmanuel Macron has called for the world to “return to reason” and de-escalate the raging conflict in the Middle East, as “Israel’s” recent attack on a major Iranian gas field caused global energy prices to soar, and stoked fears that the war could spiral out of control.

Speaking before the EU leaders’ summit in Brussels on Thursday Macron warned that Tehran’s “reckless” overnight retaliatory strike on a Qatari gas facility risked inflicting further harm on “all countries” in the region as well as the world economy.

“We will obviously defend a de-escalation, a return to stability in the Middle East,” Macron said, adding that he spoke to Qatari emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and Donald Trump about the war on Wednesday night.

“I think that everyone should calm down and the fighting should stop at least for a few days to try to give negotiations a chance again,” the French leader added. “I hope that, in any case, everyone will return to reason.”

Macron’s remarks come after “Israel” on Wednesday attacked Iran’s South Pars gas field, which forms part of the world’s biggest natural gas reserve and is the largest source of Tehran’s domestic energy supply.

Iran subsequently retaliated by striking Qatar’s Ras Laffan liquefied natural gas terminal, in an attack that Doha said caused “extensive damage” and marked a “dangerous escalation” of the conflict.

In a social media post early Thursday, Trump said that Washington “knew nothing” about “Israel’s” attack, which he said was sparked by “Israel’s” “anger for what has taken place in the Middle East”.

Trump also said no more attacks will be initiated by “Israel” if Iran refrains from further strikes on Qatar. However, he warned that the US would “massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field at an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before” if Tehran fails to comply.

Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, spiked to $118 per barrel on Thursday, the highest level since the conflict began on 28 February. It had fallen to just under $114 per barrel by 12pm CET.