The US General Who Swallowed His Own Truth

CrossFireArabia
March 6, 2026

By Jassem Al-Azzawi

General Dan Kaine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered a confidential warning to President Trump with the utmost candor—the kind of candor that democracies rely on and empires routinely ignore. He said: “We don’t have enough ammunition to win this war. It’s not going to be pretty.” This warning wasn’t born of cowardice; it was the last vestige of institutional integrity that still flickers within the halls of American military power.

Trump’s response was that of a circus clown, not a commander-in-chief. Through his “Truth Social” platform—that distorted mirror of American political life—he dismissed the warning with the arrogance of a street vendor, saying: “Oh, no, no, no. If we do it, we’ll win easily.” Thus, a sober assessment became mere publicity, and caution a lie.

But the biggest lie came later. When Kaine’s warning leaked, Trump not only rejected it but completely reversed it. With the confidence of a man who has never been held accountable for anything, he told the American public the general had said the exact opposite—that the United States had plenty of missiles, munitions, and everything else. “That’s not what he said at all,” Trump declared, putting words of false victory in the mouth of a man who had offered only warnings.

And General Cain remained silent

This silence is not just a footnote in this story; it is the story itself. By remaining silent, Cain allowed the American public to absorb the falsehood as truth. He did not say: “No, Mr. President, that’s not what I said.” He did not invoke his oath, nor the soldiers who would pay with their lives for the gap between political rhetoric and logistical reality. He chose the safety of silence over the danger of truth, and in doing so, he betrayed not only himself but the Republic. This is the rot at the heart of American militarism.

As historian Andrew Bacevich has long warned, the professional military has become more of an instrument of imperial ambition than a defender of democratic values, with senior officers more concerned with their next post than with the Constitution they swore to uphold. Kaine’s silence was not a mere slip of the tongue; it was a symptom of a deeper malaise.

The logistical picture Kaine described in private was not theoretical; the calculations were unforgiving.

Current stockpiles of interceptor missiles and precision munitions could not sustain a prolonged air campaign against a country three times the size of Iraq. The Wall Street Journal documented a “worrying gap” in U.S. missile stockpiles, noting that reserves were “far below” the requirements of intensive and sustained operations. Pentagon contractors were instructed to “double or even quadruple” production of Patriot, SM-6, and precision-strike missiles—a tacit admission that the arsenal built for Cold War scenarios is inadequate for the war being fought today.

Consider Gaza: Israel, the most heavily armed military power in the Middle East, with complete air and naval dominance, has turned a tiny coastal strip into a moon-like landscape of devastation over two and a half years, yet it has not broken Hamas. Gaza is only 37 kilometers long. Iran, on the other hand, is a nation of 90 million people, with mountainous terrain, strategic depth, fortified infrastructure, and a combat-hardened Revolutionary Guard. The idea that it will collapse under a few weeks of American airstrikes is not strategy; it is wishful thinking. “God help us if this continues, if it gets to four weeks,” Colonel Daniel Davis warned on the Deep Dive podcast. He was speaking in military terms, and the same prayer applies. Politically.

When Trump now raises the prospect of sending ground troops, he is not escalating from a position of strength, but rather improvising from a position of denial. Admitting that air power and missiles alone cannot achieve the political objective is an admission that the original objective was never honestly assessed. This is the pattern of American wars at the end of an empire: Glittering promises, disastrous calculations, and then a grim and horrific reckoning paid in blood by those who had no seat at the table where the lies were told.

The costs are already piling up—not just in the currency of munitions and riches, but in the currency that empires always ultimately spend and regret most: credibility. America’s word, already devalued by two decades of contrived justifications for war, is getting cheaper by the day.

Democracies can tolerate miscalculations, and they can tolerate bad presidents, but what they cannot long tolerate is the institutionalization of a culture where the truth is whispered behind closed doors and swallowed whole in front of cameras. When the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff allows his words to be weaponized for propaganda — when the man in charge of counting missiles refuses to correct a president who pretends they are plentiful — something far greater than military credibility collapses.

What is crumbling is the social contract between the governed and those who send them to their deaths.

Caine’s silence was not cautious; it was complicity. And in an imperial machine suffering from a shortage of ammunition and a shortage of truth, complicity is the only resource that seems inexhaustible, because when the missiles finally run out, slogans won’t replace them.

Reality will.

Al-Azzawi is an Iraqi writer who contributed this piece to Al Rai Al Youm which was translated and appeared in crossfire.com

Opinion

‘They Don’t Know Iran’s Military Lexicon’: First Six Days of The Aggression

CrossFireArabia
March 5, 2026

By Abdul Bari Atwan

They truly don’t know Iran. By this, I mean the Israelis and the US, and even some Arab leaders, none of whom dared to condemn the aggression. But the aggression entered its sixth day without the regime falling, and/or the new interim leadership rushing to the nearest negotiating table to surrender. The following factors need to be considered.

The battlefields:

First: The downing of an advanced American fighter jet, the F-15, by Iranian missiles in the west of Iran, a firstever development. This suggests the Iranian military leadership may have developed new missiles capable of achieving this feat, or they acquired them from their Chinese and Russian allies, or both, particularly the Russian S-400 and S-500 missile systems.

Second: The entry of Hezbollah’s ballistic missiles into the arena, striking deep inside Israel, specifically Tel Aviv and Haifa, for the first time after 15 months of restraint and the rebuilding of its military arsenal, and/or what was destroyed during the Israeli aggression. This means that no area in the Zionist entity will be safe.

Third: The fiery speech delivered by Sheikh Naim Qassem, Secretary-General of Hezbollah, containing strong unprecedented tone statements most notably: “We will not surrender and we will defend our land, no matter the sacrifices and despite the disparity in capabilities. We will not surrender.”

Fourth: The introduction of the fastest “infiltrating” drone into the Iranian Air Force for the first time. Named “Hadid 110,” it has a speed of 517 km/h and, according to Western military experts, is considered more efficient than its sister drone, “Shahed,” which performed well deep inside Israel. Its production costs only $35,000, while shooting it down costs $4 million.

Fifth: Every day of resistance by the Iranian army and people costs the occupying state approximately $1 billion. As for America, the costs of the war has already nearly spiralled to $160 billion in the first six days. These preliminary estimates are likely to rise, especially after the bombing of aircraft carriers and the destruction of warships, the increasing number of dead and wounded, the largest military buildup since the Iraq War, and the rise in energy prices.

Sixth: The fulfillment of the promise to close the Strait of Hormuz, which means delivering two fatal blows. The first is to the Western economy because oil and gas prices would likely reach record-breaking figures, and the second, for the Arab states who host the US military bases. Closing the Strait means preventing their oil and gas exports from reaching global markets, and the losses will increase while oil and gas revenues decrease depending on the war’s duration and developments.

The Iranians wanted from the outset a regional war of attrition with no end in sight in direct opposite to the new American warefare military doctrine, which aims for short, swift, and clean wars (without American casualties). The Iranians resolved to bomb all those cooperating with the aggression in the region. This new Iranian theory was best and most clearly expressed by Sheikh Naim Qassem when he called on the Israeli army to prepare for many days of fighting with all available means.

Defeat, surrender, and raising the white flag, individually or collectively, have no place in the Iranian military and political lexicon. In the first six days, the Iranian army launched 500 hypersonic missiles with multiple cluster warheads and more than 2,000 drones, resulting in the displacement of more than 7 million settlers to shelters and tunnels, and the destruction of large parts of Tel Aviv and Haifa.

Neither the 47-year-long starvation siege, nor three Israeli-American aggressions within a few years, nor the incitement of popular protests and the planting of spies among the protesters, nor the deployment of aircraft carriers and warships, nor inflation and the collapse of the national currency, succeeded in defeating the mighty and unwavering Iranian will, and consequently, in toppling or changing the regime.

Our proof is they baffled the Americans in negotiations that lasted more than two years in Vienna and in several other Arab and European capitals, and they never conceded. They rejected all American conditions, starting with halting enrichment and handing over 460 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, and even refusing to allow the inclusion of the Iranian missile industry or severing ties with resistance factions on the negotiating table.

Yes, arrogance, conceit, and the unfortunate complicity of some Arabs blinded them to the true nature of Iran, and they will pay a very heavy price, the most prominent feature of which will be the destruction of all Israeli gas infrastructure. In the Mediterranean, water and electricity stations, and the lack of distinction between settler and soldier, many assumptions have changed after the massacre of the children’s school in southern Iran… and time will tell.

This opinion was written in Arabic by the chief editor of Alrai Al Youm Abdul Bari Atwan and translated for crossfirearabia.com

Opinion

War and The Blame Game

CrossFireArabia
March 5, 2026

By Khairi Janbek

Undoubtedly, the blame game is not a concept limited to the Middle East, neither the notion of who started the conflict nor who will end it.

However in this context, one wishes to talk about the current conflict which is becoming a chaos beyond the Middle East and specifically about Iran and its contribution to this chaos. Going back, and from the onset of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, chaos has always been part and parcel of its revolutionary ideology, reviving the old Shia-Sunni conflict, attempting to be the representative of the Shia of the world; most importantly, the concept of export of the revolution whenever the opportunity comes around.

But this phase ended with the end of the war with Iraq, but saying ended may well be too deterministic, because chaos under Iranian sponsorship emerged again after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in the form of what became known as the Iran-dominated Shiite Crescent. However with the set backs of last year, the chaos sponsorship of Iran to a back step, to relaunch again with projectiles all around creating a chaos in the region and beyond.

Essentially at this juncture, all the affected countries seem to have left the conflict to Israel and the US to deal with, maybe to the possibility that those parties do not believe that this conflict will be conclusive, or a feeling that whether they participate in the conflict or not, they will neither be seen in good favour by the United States and/or Israel.

But also having said that, there is also plenty of scepticism in the region, because each time there is a conflict involving the USA, there is always a big possibility that the US stops in the middle and allows its adversaries to recover and pick up, which means putting themselves in an adversarial position vis a vis recovered forces which they may have to face.

In fact whether by fluke or by good thinking, not to declare the war aims in this conflict may turn out to be a wise move, as this war may indeed end as one is writing these words, with the declaration by everyone that the war aims have been achieved. But as a final word, one feels Iranian induced chaos must be met with a world response.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian columnist based in Paris, France.

Opinion

BoP and The Lurking Devil!

Saleem Ayoub Quna
March 5, 2026

Eight months ago and precisely in June 2025, the US and Israel launched their first combined “Midnight Hammer” military operation against Iran, in an attempt to obliterate its controversial nuclear facilities, set since 2018, to be settled through negotiations between the US and Iran. Prior to that strike, not Ukraine nor Venezuela or Greenland, but Gaza was the hottest issue on Trump’ international agenda, as he was applying the final touches on his anticipated peace plan for the devastated tiny strip! On 26 January this year, i.e. nearly a month ago, Trump from Davos, in Switzerland, proudly announced the birth of BoP, “The Board of Peace”, which he would preside over forever.

To enhance his initiative’s chances to succeed, Trump had invited world leaders to join his new born club for peace. Those who responded favorably had little choice to do otherwise, and some of them promised to contribute billions of dollars to make the plan work. Other big shots such as Russia, France or China were either not interested or invited!

The last one to join the club, but reluctantly, was no other than the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, despite his direct involvement in the thick of the matter. Netanyahu thought the plan was naïve and amateurish in more than one aspect! So he would send his Foreign Minister to attend the signing ceremony in Davos, for his own thoughts were focused on other more important issues that would take place later! Regardless of Netanyahu’s caveats, the Trump BoP seemed to be one of few feasible options to stop the violence and killing committed by Israel.

in Gaza, and a shy start towards a peaceful transition in Gaza and beyond despite the many loopholes.
On this occasion Trump said: “This is a big, big day, a beautiful day, potentially one of the great days ever in civilization”. The he added: “I am not talking about Gaza. Gaza is one thing, but we are talking about
much beyond Gaza. The whole deal, everything getting solved. It is called peace in the Middle East”. While this BoP was hailed as an achievement for Trump’s diplomacy, envisaged by his top capable advisor to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, and his assistant Jared Kushner, Trump’s trusted son-in-law, it whistled disaster in Netanyahu’s ears.

From this man’s point of view, if the BoP was put on track of the peace train, let alone its arrival at its desired destination, it would mean one thing and nothing else: the end of Gaza tragedy which also meant the end of Netanyahu’s political career. For him, it looked like a trap that he had, knowingly but unwillingly, a role in setting up. At this crucial moment the manipulative devil and the survival instinct in
Netanyahu, were awakened and pushed him to embark on planning a reversal of this momentum. He had to end this nonsense talk about peace for Gaza, let alone beyond! For certain, he regretted his consent to the suspension of the Midnight-Hammer strike back in June against Iran. Now time is running short for him again.

He needs to take a big and last gamble to divert Trump’s current menacing approach to solve the thorny issues in this region. He, prematurely, and ahead of his originally scheduled visit to the US, books
a meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, thus effecting his sixth meeting with Trump in less than a year!

There, he presents his case: Today, he tells Trump, Iran is the biggest real danger facing Israel and the free world led by the US; Iran is stockpiling an arsenal of all kinds of deadly missiles; the majority of
Iranians want the US to help them topple the regime which is massacring the protesters in the streets; Iranian negotiating team are just buying more time; it is now or a never again chance to finish this
nightmare called Iran, after its proxies in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon were defeated earlier.
Trump submissively listened, as Netanyahu managed to put a hold on every other item on Trump’s agenda, including his cherished BoP project for which he hoped to be nominated for the Nobel Prize for
peace!

Today as the war against Iran goes into its sixth day, two things and plus are crystal clear; there will be no peace prizes, and there will lot of havoc and chaos on the ground, plus the devil in Netanyahu, will be the happiest breathing creature around, for the time being!

Opinion

Gulf War: Slipping Into The Quagmire

CrossFireArabia
March 3, 2026

By Ismail Al-Sharif

Despite the strength of the attack, Iran remains a large country; therefore, it will take four weeks, or less – Trump.

The attack on Iran was not surprising; the massive American military buildup was sufficient to signal an imminent military operation. However, what was unexpected was the breadth of the strikes and the targeting of the head of the Iranian government himself.

US President Trump explicitly called for the overthrow of the regime and urged the Iranian people to govern themselves, while the Zionist leadership declared that the military strikes and the assassination of leaders had created a climate conducive to political change within Iran. However, the lessons of history confirm that wars waged under the banner of regime change are rarely short-lived and often descend into protracted conflicts that do not end anytime soon.

Iran responded by targeting US military bases in the Gulf states and closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world’s oil passes, as well as targeting oil tankers. This led to a sharp rise in oil prices, a development that poses a direct threat to the global economy and supply chains.

The Iranian military doctrine is based on the principle of asymmetric warfare. Instead of engaging in a conventional confrontation with US power, it employs strategies that confound its adversary, obscure its vision, make the course of the confrontation unpredictable, disrupt supply lines, and increase the cost of war for it.

One of the most dangerous escalation scenarios would be if Iran succeeded in targeting a US aircraft carrier. These carriers represent a stark embodiment of American hegemony and military might. Iran has developed anti-ship ballistic missiles specifically designed to target naval vessels, in addition to possessing swarms of drones and submarines that could be employed in such an attack. Any damage to an aircraft carrier, let alone its sinking, would constitute an unprecedented historical event, potentially opening the door to a dangerous escalation of the war.

Russia and China view the United States’ involvement in a protracted war as a strategic gain, but their direct entry into the fighting remains unlikely unless their vital interests are directly threatened.

This raises a fundamental and troubling question: Are we on the brink of a third world war? By its very nature, a world war requires the involvement of several major powers, which has not yet occurred. However, the entry of Iranian-backed factions such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and affiliated militias in Iraq and Syria could open multiple fronts simultaneously. If the conflict drags on and Gulf states become involved, and Russian and Chinese support for Iran increases, tensions between the major powers could escalate. Escalation often begins gradually. One step leads to another, one response to another, until retreat becomes increasingly difficult. This scenario persists as the conflict expands.

The United States may find itself mired in a protracted war. Iran is not Afghanistan or Iraq. It is a vast country with a population exceeding 90 million, and its society is characterized by a deep-rooted nationalism and a profound hostility toward the Zionist entity and the United States, coupled with accumulated experience in confronting external pressures and aggressions. In such a context, war often serves to solidify Iranian nationalism and unify the home front against the external enemy. It should also be noted that the collapse of a state does not necessarily lead to peace; rather, it may lead to a vacuum that breeds chaos. Targeting the nuclear program does not mean the end of nuclear ambitions; on the contrary, it may push Iran to pursue nuclear weapons at an even faster pace.

Wars often begin with pronouncements brimming with confidence and optimism, but their threads soon become entangled and increasingly complex. In its initial stages, leaders believe they can resolve it quickly, but its outbreak opens a path to the unknown; no one knows when it will end. History teaches us that wars may begin with limited objectives, but they quickly expand and escalate due to miscalculations or escalating tit-for-tat responses. Thus, the United States may find itself embroiled in a protracted war with Iran, similar to its experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, but undoubtedly far more complex and dangerous. Many analysts warn that this conflict could turn into a grave geopolitical blunder, undermining regional stability, draining resources, disrupting the global economy, and weakening American influence on the international stage.

Ismail Al Sharif is a columnist in Addustour newspaper. This column first appeared in Arabic and translated and posted on the crossfirearabia.com website.