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

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

For South Lebanon, All You Need is Few Miracles!

The fourth round of negotiations between representatives of the Lebanese Government, in the person of the Lebanese Ambassador to Washington, and representatives of the Israeli government, under the cuddling attitude of the State Department, to reach some kind of agreement between the two odd neighbors in the Middle East, look like a friendly, yet an absurd endeavor of witch-hunting, that can only render the caterers and planners of the event, happy! For each team are supposed to ask their counterparts to agree to things that are beyond their jurisdiction or authority, to say yes or no, under the current circumstances!


Israel wants the government of Lebanon to agree to a peace accord with it like the ones concluded, long time ago, with Egypt, PLO and Jordan, just to give a finger to Iran and its Shia active and militarily strong allies in Lebanon. For their part, the Lebanese delegation would be shyly telling the Israeli negotiators that before any other item is considered, Israeli forces have to be out of Lebanese territories first.

Official Israel and Lebanon are fully aware that such meetings will lead to nowhere, as long as back home and on the ground, where the real cooking is taking place, ‘chefs’ are having good time doing their best to burn the food further!


But as hopeful amateurs, certain individuals in Washington DC who are probably not educated enough or familiar with Middle Eastern zig-zags, or just pretending to be up to something, seem to be rehearsing for
future similar events!


A special tailored ceasefire in Lebanon now will be absolutely not useful for the Israelis. But it could be arranged with American urging and blessing, just to give the impression that something can be done. It will be a message to the Iranians and the world that, yes we can have a ceasefire in Lebanon now, it is your turn to be flexible on the Hormuz entanglement! While the original story was a complete reverse, meaning we can have a ceasefire around Hormuz, only if we had one in south Lebanon! But here is the real picture on the ground.


Israel is holding the whole area of south Lebanon and its nearly 400 villages as a hostage, thanks to its ability to hit any spot in Lebanon and in Beirut in particular. It is a bargaining chip to pressure the Lebanese government to submit to an official deal that would by-pass Hezbollah and the Shia component in the Lebanese Parliament. While Hezbollah and their local allies refuse to concede their arms to the central government in Beirut, claiming that such a move would be interpreted as a concession to Israel.


So, if I were to advice the Israelis on how to outsmart their opponents in Lebanon, I would tell them, you can stop your absurd war in Lebanon immediately, and start withdrawing your soldiers from areas they entered after the last ceasefire announced between Iran and the US and Israel, and wait for their reaction to that!


And if I were to advice Hezbollah, I would tell them do not target villages or civilians within Israel international borders and make clear that you only target Israeli military presence within Lebanese international borders, and wait for a reaction!

And finally, if I were to advice the Americans on this particular issue, which looks actually like a replicate of their other similar moves and initiatives in the region, since June 2025, when President Trump, willingly swallowed the pill prescribed to him by Dr. Netanyahu, to end the Iranian headache, I would say this: Might, like cash, is not the answer to all problems! It is only a temporary remedy, like the cash that cannot buy you happiness, but the delusion that you are experiencing
it!


The entanglement in south Lebanon will not be solved by apprentices in history and geography meeting in air-conditioned elegant rooms in Washington DC, but there on the grounds of south Lebanon, where valleys, trees, rivers, mountains, villages and people have long time ago, concluded among themselves, without external interference, an eternal verbal memorandum of understanding, that they were doomed to live or perish there in rotation, exactly like the four seasons of the
year!


It all worked out smoothly there since, without miracles!

Continue reading
Iran is Writing The Final Chapter!

By Ziyad Farhan Al-Majali

In major wars, results are not always measured by the ‘noise volume’, number of airstrikes, or the extent of the military maps displayed on TV screens. Sometimes the noise is louder than the decisive action, and the roar is stronger than the ability to end the battle.

From this perspective, the Israeli-American war on Iran can be read as a tumultuous moment in the history of regional conflict. Here however, it was not the final moment which Israel desired and was looking for.

Tel Aviv wanted to present the war as its declaration of its superiority, one that would be final. It wanted to say that its reach could penetrate deep inside Iran, that the old balance of deterrence was broken, and that the aftermath of the strike would not be the same as it was before.

Therefore, Israel’s “lion roar” was to be loud from the very beginning: Threatening rhetoric, painful strikes, psychological warfare — a clear attempt to portray Iran as a state exposed to Israeli and American power.

But the roar by itself, however loud it boomed, was not enough to bring about a political end. True, Iran suffered heavy blows, with sensitive facilities, infrastructure and sites sustained significant damage, finding itself facing a broad economic, military, and psychological siege and pressure.

Yet, despite all this, the war did not topple the Iranian government, nor did it remove the state from the regional equation, nor did it end its nuclear program as a negotiating issue, nor did it break its deterrent and maneuvering capabilities.

Herein lies the central paradox of this war. Israel raised the stakes to their highest points, but it did not achieve a decisive victory. Israel sought to eliminate the so-called Iranian threat with a single strike or a series of blows, only to discover that Iran is not a military site that can be wiped off the map, nor a single facility whose destruction would end the conflict.

Rather, it is a deep-rooted, expansive state with multiple levers of pressure: From the Strait of Hormuz to Lebanon, from missiles to air corridors, from allies to the capacity for long-term patience. Iran is a tough nut!

Perhaps the most dangerous revelation of the war is that it did not produce a definitive answer, but rather raised even greater questions. Can military force alone reshape Iran? Can bombing impose a stable political settlement? Will weakening Tehran lead to its expulsion from the region, or will it push it to rebuild its influence more cautiously and covertly? Was the war the beginning of the end, or the start of a new phase of a postponed conflict?

Iran emerged from the war wounded, but it didn’t exit the negotiating table. It appeared battered, but it did not collapse. Maybe besieged but it is still holding cards. Whilst today Iran might be in a predicament, but it has not lost its ability to negotiate, to threaten, and wait for the next move.

This is precisely is what is making the outcome far more complex than what Israel has tried to portray: The war may have succeeded in inflicting pain on Iran, but it did not  eliminating the Iranian state and its apparatus.

While Israel may have achieved a significant show of force, it did not achieve an outright and decisive victory. The decisive outcome it sought remained incomplete, and the deterrence it aimed to restore remained contingent on what would follow after the war: Would Iran back down? Would it retaliate? Would it accept American terms? Would it open the Strait of Hormuz according to Washington’s wishes? And would the Lebanese front be detached from Tehran’s calculations, or would it remain part of the long-term equation of retaliation?

Therefore, the war does not appear to be the end of the conflict with Iran, but rather a new chapter in a broader, protracted struggle. In this chapter, Israel raised its voice to the maximum, but it could not write the final chapter. States do not fall through mere bluster, regional projects do not end with a single blow, and conflicts that have accumulated over decades are not resolved in days, no matter how intense the fighting is.

In short, Israel’s “roar” was loud, perhaps painful, and perhaps unprecedented in some aspects, but it was not enough to topple Iran or remove it from the scene. The din of war has risen, the region has been shaken, and calculations have shifted, but Iran remains on the precipice, not outside history.

Therefore, the most accurate description of this phase is not a complete Israeli victory, nor an Iranian resistance without cost, but rather a war whose end is not yet in sight: A war in which Israel roared loudly, but was not able to bring down Iran.

This article was reproduced from the Jo24 Arabic website in Jordan and appears in the www.crossfirearabia.com.

Continue reading

You Missed

Stories From Hell: Food at Gun-point

Stories From Hell: Food at Gun-point

Aid Flotilla: Activists Subjected to Torture

Aid Flotilla: Activists Subjected to Torture

9 Killed, Dozens Injured in Israeli Strikes on Flats in Gaza

9 Killed, Dozens Injured in Israeli Strikes on Flats in Gaza

‘Insulting Phone Call’, Beirut, Iran and Changing Dynamics

‘Insulting Phone Call’, Beirut, Iran and Changing Dynamics

Highest in 2026: Israel Kills 199 Palestinians in May

Highest in 2026: Israel Kills 199 Palestinians in May

For South Lebanon, All You Need is Few Miracles!

For South Lebanon, All You Need is Few Miracles!