The US General Who Swallowed His Own Truth

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

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

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

Continue reading
War and The Blame Game

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.

Continue reading
Ali Khamenei Killed in US-Israeli Strikes

Iran’s State Television officially announced, Sunday early morning, that Iran’s spiritual leader Ali Khamenei was killed in American-Israeli strikes on the country. The television stated the leader of the Islamic revolution was martyred in the continuous US-Israeli attacks that begun on Saturday. He was working at his office on the early hours of Saturday morning. Iran media also stated his daughter, her husband and granddaughter were also killed in the attacks.

Iran has declared a mourning period of 40 days.

This is an extended profile on the late rule from Anadolu.

The killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Saturday’s joint US-Israeli strikes marks a watershed moment for the Islamic Republic, removing the figure who for more than three decades was the country’s ultimate political, military and ideological authority.

The 86-year-old cleric wielded power that extended across Iran’s armed forces, judiciary and foreign policy apparatus, with his decisions overriding those of presidents and parliament alike.

Since assuming leadership in 1989 following the death of the Islamic Republic’s founder Ruhollah Khomeini, Khamenei steered Iran through the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war, crippling Western sanctions, diplomatic isolation, recurring domestic unrest and intensifying confrontation with Washington and Tel Aviv.

To supporters, he was the steadfast defender of Iran’s sovereignty against foreign pressure. To critics, he symbolized an uncompromising political system resistant to reform and dissent.

As supreme leader, he served as head of state and commander-in-chief, retaining final authority over the armed forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Childhood, faith and early politics

Khamenei was born on April 19, 1939, in Mashhad in eastern Iran to a modest religious family. After completing primary education, he pursued Islamic studies at seminary in Mashhad before continuing with advanced theological training in Qom. He was also known for his deep interest in poetry and literature.

In the early 1960s, he joined Ayatollah Khomeini’s movement against Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Beginning in 1963, he was repeatedly arrested by SAVAK, the Shah’s intelligence service, for organizing protests and distributing anti-regime literature, and spent several periods in exile.

As mass protests swept Iran in 1978-1979, weakening the monarchy, political prisoners and exiles returned to public life. Khamenei re-emerged in Mashhad and other cities, helping organize demonstrations and mobilize support for Khomeini’s revolutionary agenda.

Ascent and role as supreme leader

Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Khamenei joined the Revolutionary Council and quickly rose within the new political order. He served as deputy defense minister, Tehran’s Friday prayer leader, and a member of parliament.

In 1981, after the assassination of President Mohammad Ali Rajai, Khamenei was elected president, serving two consecutive terms until 1989. That same year, he survived an assassination attempt when a bomb hidden in a tape recorder exploded during a mosque speech, leaving his right arm permanently impaired.

After Khomeini’s death in June 1989, Iran’s Assembly of Experts appointed Khamenei as supreme leader, with constitutional revisions later formalizing the position at the apex of the political system.

Though initially viewed as a compromise choice, he gradually consolidated authority, strengthening the power of the supreme leader’s office over both executive and legislative branches. Under his leadership, Iran pursued a foreign policy centered on resisting US influence, expanding regional alliances and maintaining strategic deterrence.

Domestically, Iran’s politics moved between reformist and conservative currents. Reformist President Mohammad Khatami’s 1997 victory generated public optimism, but Khamenei constrained efforts to open Iran to the West. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presidency aligned more closely with conservative priorities, though the disputed 2009 election triggered mass protests.

Later administrations navigated a complex balance between pragmatism and ideological rigidity. President Hassan Rouhani pursued diplomatic engagement, including nuclear negotiations, while conservative President Ebrahim Raisi aligned closely with Khamenei’s policies.

Khamenei’s tenure also saw repeated waves of unrest. In 2022, the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody sparked nationwide protests that exposed deep social grievances.

Protests erupted again in late 2025, initially against economic hardships but later spiraling into mass anti-regime demonstrations. The protests saw violent clashes and a government crackdown, with Iranian authorities confirming over 3,100 deaths, including both civilians and security personnel.

Nuclear program and negotiations

Iran’s nuclear program became one of the defining issues of Khamenei’s rule. As tensions escalated with Western powers, sweeping sanctions severely strained Iran’s economy.

In 2015, Tehran reached the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), curbing nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Khamenei approved negotiations but remained deeply skeptical of Washington. The deal unraveled after the US under President Donald Trump withdrew in 2018 and reinstated sanctions, prompting Iran to scale back compliance.

Khamenei’s death comes as Washington and Tehran were engaged in indirect nuclear negotiations. US demands reportedly included permanent restrictions on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and limits on enriched uranium stockpiles, while Iranian officials insisted they would not relinquish enrichment rights or ship stockpiles abroad and demanded sanctions relief.

Khamenei consistently framed Iran’s nuclear ambitions as peaceful while portraying sanctions as economic coercion. In one of his last social media posts on Feb. 17, he said nuclear energy is an “undeniable right” recognized under international guidelines and assailed US interference.

Palestine, regional alliances and the ‘Axis of Resistance’

Support for Palestinian statehood remained central to Khamenei’s worldview. Following Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023, he intensified rhetoric against Israel and the US, urging countries to sever ties with Israel and calling for diplomatic isolation.

A key pillar of Iran’s strategy under Khamenei was backing regional allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and armed groups across Iraq and Yemen, as part of what Iranian officials describe as the “Axis of Resistance” — a network aligned against Israeli and US influence. The grouping also covers Palestinian factions including Hamas and the former Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Confrontation with US and Israel

Khamenei remained a long-standing critic of US and Israeli policies, frequently portraying them as Iran’s principal adversaries. Regional tensions escalated after Israeli airstrikes on Iranian sites last year prompted retaliatory attacks by Tehran.

He repeatedly vowed that Iran would respond to Israeli actions and refused the prospect of negotiations with Tel Aviv, warning that Tehran would continue to resist its aggression.

At the same time, US and Israeli officials in recent weeks had renewed calls for political change in Iran, underscoring the intensity of the confrontation that framed the final period of Khamenei’s rule.

In a statement announcing Khamenei’s death, Trump said he “was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do.”

The US president also repeated his call for “the Iranian people to take back their Country.”

Khamenei’s death removes one of the most consequential figures in modern Middle Eastern politics — a leader who shaped Iran’s ideological identity, regional alliances and decades-long confrontation with the West.

The uncertainty now facing Tehran could prove as consequential as his rule, as Iran navigates leadership succession amid heightened regional tensions and fragile diplomatic efforts.

Continue reading