With focus on Iran and Gaza, Israel is quietly annexing the West Bank

It’s not official policy but Israeli leaders are allowing new ‘facts on the ground’

Analysis | Middle East

Paul R. Pillar, Mar 03, 2026

Israel’s new war with Iran coupled with slaughter in the Gaza Strip — where Israeli military operations have killed more than 600 Palestinians since a “ceasefire” supposedly went into effect last October, adding to the tens of thousands killed during the previous two years — has diverted attention from events in the West Bank.

That diversion is fine with those intent on cementing Israeli control there and continuing the subjugation or displacement of the 3.8 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Among the measures that Israel has taken toward that objective during the past few months is legislation in the Knesset making it easier for Israelis to purchase land in the West Bank. More recent actions by the Israeli cabinet have furthered that same goal as well as extending Israeli control over certain holy sites and portions of the West Bank that, according to the Oslo Accords of 1993, the Palestinian Authority is supposed to administer.

At least as significant in creating facts on the ground has been violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinian residents. That violence has surged since the beginning of the assault on the Gaza Strip, with the perpetrators evidently taking advantage of the diversion of international attention to Gaza and now Iran. The increase in violence continues. Nearly 700 Palestinians were displaced by settler violence and intimidation this past January — the highest monthly figure since the Gaza offensive began in October 2023.

The Israeli government is an accessory to the settler violence. It has done little to discourage it and more often condones it. Units of the Israeli Defense Forces have even participated in it.

The Israeli activity in the West Bank is illegal and recognized as such by most of the international community. It is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civilian populations. By settling its own citizens in Palestinian territory that Israel conquered in a war that it initiated in 1967, it is especially violating Article 49 of that convention, which expressly prohibits the transfer of any of the conquering nation’s civilian population to the territory it occupies.

The United States, through multiple administrations of both parties, has paid lip service to the concept of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while doing little to impede Israeli actions in the West Bank that have been putting that solution out of reach. The Trump administration has carried these tendencies even farther. The administration’s posture is personified by the U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, an outspoken Christian Zionist whose statements appear designed less to uphold U.S. interests in the face of Israeli actions than to support religious rationales for Israeli expansionism.

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don’t miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.

In a further move along this line, the embassy that Huckabee heads announced last week that it will start opening “pop-up” consular offices in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. This move can be seen as part of the same policy that during Trump’s first term saw the closing of a U.S. consulate in Jerusalem that had long been one of the chief channels for U.S. relations with the Palestinians.

Notwithstanding the administration’s assertion that last week’s announcement does not represent a policy change, delighted Israeli officials and dismayed Palestinians each saw it as a significant statement that bestows a U.S. stamp of legitimacy on the settlements. It would be difficult to justify the move as merely a matter of administrative convenience. The first settlement to receive one of the pop-up consulates is only eight miles from the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, where consular services already are available.

The administration says it opposes Israeli annexation of the West Bank. The White House said so just last month. But that opposition refers only to formal, openly declared annexation. What matters more is the de facto annexation that has been going on for years. The administration policy toward that is not opposition but instead a condoning of it and, as the move regarding the consulates illustrates, active support for it.

Although some of the most extreme Israeli figures, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have called for formal annexation of most of the West Bank, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in no hurry to make such a declaration because it is getting almost everything it wants from the de facto annexation. A formal declaration would make it more difficult for that government to deflect international criticism of its actions in the West Bank. It would no longer be able to string along the international community with the fiction of a possible two-state solution and instead would have to defend its apartheid policies within what it says itself are its national boundaries.

With moves such as the opening of consulates in the settlements, the United States is associating itself ever more closely with the Israeli expansionist project and its inhumane treatment of the Palestinians. This is contrary to U.S interests, partly because it puts the United States ever more conspicuously on the wrong side of legality, morality, and international opinion.

Moreover, oppressed Palestinians will not forever be submissive. The long history of this conflict has already seen two intifadas, which have taken violent as well as nonviolent forms, and there could be more. The conflict will continue to be a prime source of instability in the Middle East. Besides inhibiting any U.S. effort to “pivot” away from the region, the close association of the United States with the oppressive policies of Israel makes the United States more of a target for terrorism or other reprisals.

Paul R. Pillar

Paul R. Pillar is Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University and a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He is also an Associate Fellow of the Geneva Center for Security Policy.

Share this:

• Facebook
• X
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• More
• 
  

Biblical Bloodlust: Huckabee, Cyrus, and the Zionist Greater Israel Fantasy Fueling the Iran War

Michael Leonardi, COUNTERPUNCH. 6 Marc, 2026

 

An Irgun poster from 1931 showing a map labelled “Land of Israel” covering the borders of both Mandatory Palestine and the Emirate of Transjordan, which the Irgun claimed in their entirety for a future Jewish state – Public Domain

Israel and the United States have launched a war of aggression against Iran that has spread across the Persian Gulf and beyond, with Israel also attacking Lebanon and invading with ground troops. The brutal assassination of Iran’s supreme Shia religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, along with his wife, daughter and granddaughter set the stage for the unfolding zealotry. A coordinated assault that combines airstrikes on so-called military targets, though civilian targets have been hit causing widespread casualties.

The war has been framed by its architects as a defensive necessity, but the rhetoric reveals a deeper truth: this is biblical bloodlust dressed as geopolitics, with Zionist expansionism and Christian Zionist end-times zealotry driving the aggression toward the dream of Greater Israel. US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee set the tone in a February podcast with Tucker Carlson, declaring that Israel has a “biblical right” to vast swaths of the Middle East—from the Nile to the Euphrates—and adding, “It would be fine if they took it all.” This is not fringe rhetoric; it is the ideological engine of a fascist international that sees the Iran war as Armageddon’s prelude, with Trump cast as a modern Cyrus the Great anointed to usher in the apocalypse.

The vision of Greater Israel has deep roots in Zionist thought, evolving from early nationalist aspirations into a militant territorial program. Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, sketched expansive territorial ambitions in his private diaries of the 1890s, envisioning a Jewish homeland in historic Palestine that could stretch from the “Brook of Egypt” to the Euphrates, encompassing parts of modern Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. While Herzl’s public focus in “Der Judenstaat” (1896) was pragmatic—securing any viable territory as a refuge from European antisemitism—his private notes reveal a broader imperial dream shaped by the colonial spirit of the era.

Map of Greater Israel

Ze’ev Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism in the 1920s, radicalized this vision. His “Iron Wall” doctrine called for a fortified Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River, including Transjordan, rejecting partition and insisting on military strength to “colonize” the land. Jabotinsky’s followers, including Menachem Begin, laid the foundation for Israel’s Likud party, whose 1977 platform declared: “Between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” The 1967 Six-Day War transformed this ideology into reality, with the conquest of the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, and Golan Heights hailed by Religious Zionists as divine redemption.

Today, ultranationalists like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich openly advocate full annexation and Palestinian expulsion, while Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly framed his political mission as “historic and spiritual,” declaring in multiple speeches that the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people by divine right and that settling “Judea and Samaria” is a sacred duty to fulfill biblical promises. This is no mere political posture; it is a messianic commitment that drives the current war of aggression on Iran and the relentless push for territorial expansion.

Christian Zionism provides the theological rocket fuel for this expansionist project. Rooted in 19th-century dispensationalism—popularized by John Nelson Darby and later the Scofield Reference Bible—Christian Zionists believe the return of Jews to Palestine fulfills Old Testament prophecies that must precede the Rapture, Tribulation, Armageddon, and Christ’s return. The 1948 establishment of Israel was celebrated as the “super-sign” of prophecy; the 1967 capture of Jerusalem and the West Bank was seen as divine restoration of “Judea and Samaria.” Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, embodies this fervor. His Carlson interview framed Israel’s claim to biblical lands as God-given, dismissing Arab objections as irrelevant. He and other evangelical leaders hail Trump as a modern Cyrus—the Persian king who freed Jews from Babylonian exile in 539 BCE, enabling temple rebuilding. Banners in Israel proclaim “Cyrus the Great is alive!” for Trump’s embassy move, Golan recognition, Gaza genocide, and Iran aggression. Netanyahu compared Trump to Cyrus in 2018; Huckabee echoes it today. For evangelicals, Cyrus-Trump fulfills prophecy: empowering Israel hastens Armageddon, where Jews convert or perish. This theology ignores Cyrus’ historical tolerance—his cylinder is hailed as the first human rights charter—twisting it into justification for conquest. Iran’s ambassador dismissed it: “Trump is no Cyrus,” but the fantasy drives policy, casting Iran as biblical foe.

This religious zeal infects the US military command. Over 200 complaints to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation reveal commanders telling troops the Iran war is “God’s divine plan” to trigger Armageddon and Jesus’ return. One NCO reported a briefing where the commander urged, “Tell your troops this is all part of God’s divine plan,” citing Revelation and proclaiming Trump “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran.” Christian nationalists in uniform see the war as fulfilling end-times prophecy: Iran as biblical “Persia” in the final battle. With US forces now directly engaged, this zealotry risks turning tactical strikes into an apocalyptic holy war.

This all serves the warped Zionist concept of Greater Israel: biblical borders from the Nile to the Euphrates, encompassing “Judea and Samaria” and beyond. Huckabee’s “take it all” is no slip—it’s the dream of expansionists who reject Palestinian statehood as unbiblical and the existence of Palestinians outright. Greater Israel means ethnic cleansing, as seen in Gaza’s 75,000 dead and West Bank land grabs. The “ceasefire” is a farce: over 600 Palestinians killed since October 2025, famine weaponized. Israel’s aid ban on 37 groups (Oxfam, MSF, UNRWA) threatening no witnesses as further strangulation completes the genocide.

Europe’s complicity is sycophantic. In Munich, leaders gave Rubio a standing ovation for his “Western civilization” screed—ethnocentric drivel exalting whiteness while vowing no “moral equivalence” with the colonized. One by one EU governments are jumping the hurdles of international law to somehow hold Iran responsible for the lunatic aggression of Israel and the United States. EU governments are joining with Zionist zealots to codify IHRA laws criminalizing criticism of Israel. This is the fascist international: racism, crusader zeal, Zionist supremacy fused into one.

The Fourth Reich is here—in pulpits, Pentagon briefings, and boardrooms—wrapping aggression in scripture, conquest in prophecy, and genocide in “civilization.” Christian Zionism is its theological engine; Greater Israel its territorial goal. The zealots may pray for Armageddon, but the oppressed will outlast their prophecies. Empires fall. The people rise. United we can overcome.

Michael Leonardi lives in Italy and can be reached at michaeleleonardi@gmail.com

Share this:

• Facebook
• X
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• More
• 
  

𝐒𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢 𝐉𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 '𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐬' 𝐨𝐧 𝐆𝐮𝐥𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧, 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐔𝐒-𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐚𝐫

Iran told Saudi Arabia it was not responsible for a drone attack on an Aramco facility, calling it ‘an Israeli effort to sabotage regional peace’

News Desk

MAR 5, 2026

(Phto credit: Reuters/Amr Alfiky)

 

In an interview broadcast on Asharq News on 3 March, Adhwan al-Ahmari, the editor-in-chief of Independent Arabia and the president of the Saudi Journalists Association, said that “not all attacks” targeting Persian Gulf nations come from Iran, and stressed fears that the US–Israeli alliance wants to “trap” Gulf nations into joining the war.
“Some believe this war is an American-Israeli trap to implicate the Gulf countries and draw them into a confrontation with Iran,” Ahmari said. “This hypothesis, I think, increases every day.”
“What if the US announces after a week, 10 days, or two weeks that it has achieved all its goals in this war and that the war is over and then leaves the Gulf states in an open confrontation?” he asked.
In parallel, Middle East Eye (MEE) reported in an exclusive article that Iranian officials said Israel carried out several drone strikes on energy infrastructure in the Gulf.
The official reportedly declined to specify which incidents were attributed to Israel, but said at least some of the drone strikes on Gulf infrastructure were not carried out by Iran.
“I can categorically say that some of the attacks were not carried out by us [Iran],” the anonymous officials told MEE.
Saudi Arabia has faced several drone and missile attacks in recent days, including strikes targeting Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Aramco’s Ras Tanura oil refinery, and the US Embassy in Riyadh.
Two additional Iranian sources told MEE that Israel’s Mossad intelligence service may have launched some operations from within Iran, claiming authorities were searching for drone storage facilities allegedly used in the attacks.
Iranian officials also said Tehran had informed Saudi Arabia it was not responsible for the strike on the Ras Tanura facility, describing the incident as “an Israeli effort to sabotage regional peace and alliances between neighbours.”
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, meanwhile, told Gulf leaders that Tehran’s military actions were aimed at defending itself after US-Israeli attacks. “We respect your sovereignty,” he said, adding that regional security “must be achieved through the collective efforts of its states.” 

The ‘Empire of Lies’ Comes for Iran

by Charles Goyette | Mar 4, 2026

 

Benjamin Franklin said it best: “There never was a good war, or a bad peace.”

Now that war is again underway—the third attack on Iran in two years—people of healthy human consciousness must pray that the destruction and carnage is limited.

Yet the trajectory appears to be grim.

Wars often progress in unexpected ways. The Persian Gulf region is a tangled spaghetti plate of interests including economic, religious, cultural, and geopolitical. None of our politicians have proved capable of comprehending those interests and foreseeing the consequences of their elective wars. President George W. Bush was stunningly uninformed about the existence of Sunni and Shia factions when he invaded Iraq, a war that inadvertently empowered Iran. Officials who assured us that they knew where the phantom Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were, were quite wrong. Just as they were wrong when they foolishly assured us that the war would last “six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

Similarly, as many quipped after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, Washington took twenty years, trillions of dollars, and four presidents to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

Nor can it be allowed to slip down the memory hole that only a year ago the Deep State installed Ahmed al-Sharaa, the terrorist head chopper formerly known as al-Julani, as the president of Syria. It must not be forgotten that until recently al-Sharaa carried a $10 million dollar bounty on his head placed by the U.S. government. He was a State Department “Specially Designated Global Terrorist.” But now the new president of Syria, having been sanitized and empowered by the Deep State, is fêted by Donald Trump in the Oval Office.   

The U.S. global military empire—the Empire of Lies—is capable of exerting force, but utterly incapable of understanding the consequences of its regime change wars.

That is but one reason that the Constitution, often cited but seldom adhered to, lodged warmaking authority with the people’s representatives. The Founders knew from historical precedent that heads of states and executive branches have a propensity to make needless war. Thus they provided that the people who pay for it with their lives, limbs, and prosperity, would make the decision to go to war. Those decisions are to be made through their elected representatives who become more judicious about engaging in needless wars since they know they can be held accountable for their judgement and their votes.

No one—I repeat, no one—knows how events will unfold from here. Already President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are talking about the prospect of American soldiers—“boot on the ground”—in Iran, while Israel has clearly threatened the use of nuclear weapons. As reports, spin jobs, and chest-thumping proceed, the proverbial wisdom that the first casualty of war is the truth should be borne in mind. Despite the escalation that we are seeing, people of healthy human consciousness must pray that the destruction and carnage is limited. Our voices must be heard and echo throughout the marbled palaces of Washington.

Share this:

• Facebook
• X
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• More
• 
  

U.S. Troops Were Told Iran War Is for “Armageddon,” Return of Jesus

 https://substack.com/visited-surface-framehttps://substack.com/session-attribution-frame

Jonathan Larsen’s Substack

Advocacy group reports commanders giving similar messages at more than 30 installations in every branch of the military

Jonathan Larsen

Mar 03, 2026

To support my reporting and keep it free for everyone, you can become a paid subscriber. Thank you.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the Fellowship Foundation’s Feb. 5, 2026, prayer breakfast, falsely claimed that America was founded as a Christian nation. (Screengrab / C-SPAN video.)

A combat-unit commander told non-commissioned officers at a briefing Monday that the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that Pres. Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,” according to a complaint by a non-commissioned officer.

From Saturday morning through Monday night, more than 110 similar complaints about commanders in every branch of the military had been logged by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF).

The complaints came from more than 40 different units spread across at least 30 military installations, the MRFF told me Monday night.

The MRFF is keeping the complainants anonymous to prevent retribution by the Defense Department. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to my request for comment.

One complainant identified themselves as a non-commissioned officer (NCO) in a unit currently outside the Iran combat zone but in Ready-Support status, deployable at any time. The NCO said they were Christian and emailed the MRFF on behalf of 15 troops, including at least 11 Christians, one Muslim, and one Jew. (Full email printed below.)

The NCO wrote to the MRFF that their commander “urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.”

This is nota paywall. My reporting is free for everyone because some readers support my work by becoming paid subscribers. You can become a free or paid subscriber here:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has enshrined evangelical Christianity at the uppermost levels of the U.S. military, airing monthly prayer meetings throughout the Pentagon. Last year, the Pentagon confirmed to me that Hegseth attends a weekly White House Bible study. It’s led by a preacher who says God commands America to support Israel.

Monday’s email from the NCO said that their commander’s remarks “destroy morale and unit cohesion and are in violation of the oaths we swore to support the [C]onstitution.”

MRFF President and Founder Mikey Weinstein, a veteran of the Air Force and the Reagan White House, told me that since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran early Saturday morning, the MRFF has been “inundated” with similar complaints:

These calls have one damn thing in freaking common; our MRFF clients [service members who seek MRFF aid] report the unrestricted euphoria of their commanders and command chains as to how this new “biblically-sanctioned” war is clearly the undeniable sign of the expeditious approach of the fundamentalist Christian “End Times” as vividly described in the New Testament Book of Revelation.

Many of their commanders are especially delighted with how graphic this battle will be zeroing in on how bloody all of this must become in order to fulfill and be in 100% accordance with fundamentalist Christian end of the world eschatology.

Weinstein cited constitutional and Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibitions against injecting religious beliefs into official military instruction or messaging.

He said, “Any military members seeking to take advantage of their subordinates by advancing their blood-soaked, Christian nationalist wet dreams upon the flames of this latest non-Congressionally sanctioned attack against Iran, should be swiftly, aggressively and visibly prosecuted.”

Weinstein added that the MRFF receives similar complaints about Christian eschatology — end-of-the-world theology — “whenever this shit blows up with Israel in the Middle East.”

After the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, for instance, the MRFF reported a complaint about an Air Force commander who said at a briefing that, “[T]he war between Israel and Hamas has all been foretold by the Book of Revelation in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and no-one can do anything about that.”

After 9/11, Pres. George W. Bush referred to the American “crusade” against terrorism, evoking the ancient clashes between Christian crusaders and Muslims. Bush’s language was seen as potentially inspiring Muslims to take up arms against the U.S., if it proclaimed itself a Christian army waging war on Islam.

French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine said, “One has to avoid falling into this huge trap, this monstrous trap” set by al Qaeda with the 9/11 attacks. Bush dropped the term “crusade.”

While Christian nationalism has simmered in the military for decades, Hegseth has ended even the pretense of official intolerance for it. Trump, too, has cast himself as a champion of Christian exceptionalism, embedding it within divisions of the executive branch.

As I revealed last year, Hegseth sponsors the weekly White House Bible study that preaches support for Israel.

Some Christians claim biblical prophecy requires Israel to exist for Jesus to return. But Hegseth’s Bible study leader, preacher Ralph Drollinger, teaches that the reason to support Israel is that God still blesses Israel’s allies and curses Israel’s enemies, even though Israel killed Jesus (this smear, the historic root of antisemitism, has been rejected by every major religion).

After Israel’s attack on Iran last year, Drollinger dedicated two weeks of lessons to preaching support for Israel. His lessons went out to White House cabinet members and members of Congress even as Israel, too, was lobbying for U.S. engagement.

Hegseth has also initiated monthly prayer sessions, most recently featuring Doug Wilson, the far-right Christian nationalist. He has also brought in other preachers from his personal circle, rejecting any attempt at making the meetings ecumenical.

Hegseth himself also speaks at these meetings, proselytizing his personal religious beliefs. “This is … I think, exactly where we need to be as a nation, at this moment,” Hegseth reportedly said, “in prayer, on bended knee, recognizing the providence of our lord and savior Jesus Christ.”

While the MRFF historically has been able to get the Pentagon to swat down Christian incursions into the military, the Trump administration is openly disdainful of military norms and law. It remains to be seen whether and how wholesale Christianization of the Iran war will be opposed by officials inside the Pentagon, or political and legal advocates for secular values outside it.

---

NCO Email to MRFF

As redacted by MRFF:

From: (Active Duty Military NCO and MRFF Client’s email address withheld)
Subject: Unit combat readiness briefing and Armageddon
Date: March 2, 2026 at 1:02:53 PM MST
To: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org>

Mr. Weinstein thank you for taking my calls and the calls of some of my colleagues as to what happened earlier this morning with our combat unit.

Please protect my identity and the identities of those I’m speaking for as we discussed.

Our unit is not currently in the combat zone AOR regarding the Iranian attacks but we are in a “Ready-Support” function where we could be deployed there at any moment to join and augment the combat operations as participants.

I am a (NCO rank withheld) in our unit. This morning our commander opened up the combat readiness status briefing by urging us to not be “afraid” as to what is happening with our combat operations in Iran right now. He urged us to tell our troops that this was “all part of God’s divine plan” and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. He said that “President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth”. He had a big grin on his face when he said all of this which made his message seem even more crazy. Our commander would probably be described as a “Christian First” supporter. He has been this way for a very long time and makes it clear that he desires all of us under him to become just like him as a Christian. But what he did this morning was so toxic and over the line that it shocked many of us in attendance at the ops readiness briefing. Besides myself I am reaching out to MRFF on behalf of 15 fellow troops. I know you asked me about the religious views of our group who has requested help from the MRFF. I can only tell you that I am Christian and at least 10 of the others are also Christians. One of the others is Jewish and one is Muslim. I don’t know the religious or non-religious status for the other three at this time.

I and my fellow troops know that it is completely wrong to have to suffer through what our commander said today. It’s not just the separation of church and state as we discussed Mr. Weinstein. It’s the fact that our commander feels as though he is fully supported and justified by the entire (combat unit’s name withheld) chain of command to inflict his Armageddon views of our attack on Iran on those of us beneath him in the chain of command.

I hope by sending this email to you that this will help expose these wrong actions which destroy morale and unit cohesion and are in violation of the oaths we swore to support the constitution.

---

Full Statement from MRFF President Mikey Weinstein

“Since the start of the unprovoked American and Israeli war on Iran, this past Saturday morning, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has been literally inundated with desperate calls for help from military members across all branches, organizations and MOS/AFSC/SFSC designations (military occupational areas). Well over 100 calls have already come in and more keep coming.

These calls have one damn thing in freaking common; our MRFF clients report the unrestricted euphoria of their commanders and command chains as to how this new “biblically-sanctioned” war is clearly the undeniable sign of the expeditious approach of the fundamentalist Christian “End Times” as vividly described in the New Testament Book of Revelation.

Many of their commanders are especially delighted with how graphic this battle will be zeroing in on how bloody all of this must become in order to fulfill and be in 100% accordance with fundamentalist Christian end of the world eschatology.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation demands that all personnel in the Department of Defense (not “War”) remember and fully internalize that the oaths they swear are not to the narcissistic, sociopathic, orange, POS tRump, nor to little Petey ‘Kegseth’ nor to Jesus Christ. On the contrary, their oath is SOLELY to the United States Constitution, which includes both a full separation of church and state mandate in the First Amendment and NO establishment of any sort of putrid ‘religious test’ in Clause 3 of Article VI.”

Any military members seeking to take advantage of their subordinates by advancing their blood-soaked, Christian nationalist wet dreams upon the flames of this latest non-Congressionally sanctioned attack against Iran, should be swiftly, aggressively and visibly prosecuted for numerous violations of the military criminal code known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

You know, that very same criminal code that Secretary ‘Kegseth’ is trying to prosecute Arizona Senator Mark Kelly under for simply advising military members not to obey illegal orders; you know like ordering otherwise helpless, military subordinates to acknowledge that the Iran war has been sanctioned by the fundamentalist Christian nationalist version of our Lord and Savior and the New Testament in specific order to bring about the end of the world and usher in the 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ.”

---

I’m an independent journalist whose reporting is made possible by reader support. As a former executive producer at MSNBC, I helped create Up w/ Chris Hayes and previously was a senior producer on Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann. Your paid subscription helps me keep reporting.

Share this:

• Facebook
• X
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• More
• 
  

Craig Murray: The War for Greater Israel

Consortium News, March 3, 2026

What long-term lessons China, Russia and the Global South are learning from the abandonment by the entire West of the principles of international law, we shall see in the decades to come.

Gandhi Hospital in Tehran on Monday after U.S.-Israeli strikes. (Hossein Zohrevand/Tasnim News Agency / Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY 4.0)

By Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk

There has scarcely been an attempt to pretend any justification in international law for the attack on Iran and murder of its leader. The response of the U.K. government, focusing almost entirely on condemning Iran for exercising its legitimate right of self-defence, takes the Keir Starmer dishonesty meter further off the scale.

The RAF has been actively involved in genocide in Gaza for two years with its surveillance and logistic support for the IDF. It is now fighting for Israel again; intercepting Iranian missiles is not defensive; it is joining in the attack on an already vastly overmatched opponent.

I am afraid that the truth is the Iranian attempt to defend itself militarily will be less impactful than many anti-imperialists hope. The astonishing amounts of money spent by the U.S. government on military and surveillance technology simply do have real-world effect.

Here in Venezuela, having seen the major sites struck by the U.S. on Jan. 3, I have concluded that no act of betrayal was needed. Just overwhelming force and precision technology applied against a technologically unequal opponent whose key capabilities were all on open hilltops or in unhardened barracks.

Iran is much more militarily sophisticated, but facing exponentially more force. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in his own home, not hiding away. He is going to prove a lot more powerful as a martyr than as a ruler with his internal critics.

We are facing not only a period of unapologetic imperialism to which virtually all Western countries are prepared to defer, but a return of medievalism, both in the sheer barbarity and scale of physical abuse, as witnessed in Gaza and in general Israeli brutality, and in use of kidnap and murder as methods of high policy. Legitimising the killing and kidnap of leaders of opposing states is of course a double-edged sword.

Having sanctioned genocide, mass killings and deliberate destruction of medical facilities and staff, the mass murder of children, as well as the kidnapping and murder of heads of state, it is hard now to imagine almost any atrocity which the Western powers are in any moral position to condemn.

The reflection of the Palestinian flag in Ali Khamenei’s glasses at a funeral ceremony for Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Aug. 1, 2024. (Khamenei.ir / Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY 4.0)

While Iran’s military ability to strike back is limited, the ramifications of this attack will not be. The rulers of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have reverted to the norm of being not only reliable U.S. and Israeli satraps, but promoters of atavistic hatred of Shia Muslims.

The West is deliberately exploiting the Shia/Sunni divide, as it has for centuries; but this will now destabilise the region for decades. Iraq in particular is going to be convulsed, and so will Pakistan. In Bahrain, the Shia population has been held in check by its Sunni rulers using systematic Western-sponsored murder and torture. Using it as a base to murder the Ayatollah is going to blow back.

It would appear that we are going to witness an aerial campaign to destroy Iran’s civilian infrastructure, as in Iraq where 65 percent of clean drinking water, 50 percent of hospitals and clinics and 80 percent of electrical generation was destroyed by “liberation” by the NATO powers. The object is the destruction of Iran as a viable state.

It is worth recalling that Iran used to be a Western-style state with a reasonable democracy. It was the election of the Socialist Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1951, and his nationalisation of British Petroleum, which was met by the MI6- and C.I.A.- sponsored coup of 1953. The vicious and vainglorious rule of their puppet Shah was the cause of the theocratic revolution.

Mohammed Mossadegh, the prime minister of Iran who was ousted by a U.K.-U.S, coup, while under house arrest in Ahmadabad, Iran, in 1965. (Behnam Farid /Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain)

Escalating Western sanctions were imposed by the U.S. or E.U. on Iran in 1979, 1984, 1995, 1996, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2018, 2019 and 2025. There were U.N.-approved sanctions imposed from 2006 to 2016. These very substantially hampered Iran’s economic development.

The curious thing is that the founding myth of the Western powers is that economic development leads to an expanding, educated middle class which promotes both economic and social liberalism and produces the conditions for democracy.

By this reading, if you wished to cement in power an authoritarian government, then limiting economic development is the way to do it. There is something in this reading; I do not doubt that the West’s relentless efforts to strangle Iran – which have had some real success – have hampered its political development.

That is not to accept all the Western myths about Iran. Female education is very strong, and there is extensive female participation throughout economic and governmental institutions. Iran has an extremely good record of tolerating and even supporting minority religious communities, including the Jewish community.

There are plenty of women in Tehran without head coverings – Iran is far more tolerant in this regard than Saudi Arabia. While it retains a retrograde intolerance of gay people, it acknowledges gender dysphoria and assists trans people.

I am not prepared to give a moment of countenance to arguments that bombing Iran back to the 19th century is going in any way to improve the lives of its people. It did not do so in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. It was a disaster which unleashed waves of refugees upon Europe, leading directly to the rise of the far right.

I think it is unlikely to change the form of government in Iran in any significant way. Regime change by bombing is a highly problematic concept.

What it has done is to remove Ayatollah Khamenei, whose fatwa on the creation of a nuclear weapon was the only reason Iran does not have one.

It is delusional to believe that Iran, with its excellent scientific base, could not have developed nuclear bombs in secret away from those monitored enrichment programmes, had it chosen to do so. What is likely to result in the medium term from this conflict, if it long continues, is a more primitive, more atavistic and nuclear-armed Iran.

The Iran nuclear deal torpedoed by Trump in 2018 had provided a rare moment of hope. With sanctions easing, there were chances of both smoother economic development and reform in Iran. That is why Israel wanted the agreement scuppered.

U.S. team on way to Iran nuclear negotiation meeting at U.N., New York City, 2016. (State Department)

The attempted obliteration of Iran is part of a systematic attempt to eliminate by physical force all pockets of resistance to American hegemony.

We have seen Rubio’s astonishing assertion of Imperialism as a positive force. Matthew Lynn in The Washington Post exemplified the new Western doctrine. He mocked China for its pacific policy. He argued that for China to build infrastructure for the Global South was futile because the United States might simply seize, blockade or destroy any infrastructure by military force. This he viewed as not shameful, but a great triumph.

What long-term lessons China, Russia and the Global South are learning from the abandonment by the entire West of the principles of international law, we shall see in the decades to come. None of this is going to be good for anyone.

It is not just a Trump phenomenon. Biden fully supported the Gaza genocide. Almost all major political parties throughout the West are under firm Zionist control, as is all of the significant major media and the ownership of every significant alternative media platform.

Iran has provided, directly and through proxies, the only military opposition to the creation of Greater Israel. This war is for Greater Israel. But it is also a wider effort to re-establish the failing economic dominance of the United States by military control of key resources.

There is no part of the world which will be safe from the fallout.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Subscriptions to keep Craig Murray’s blog going are gratefully received. Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, Murray has set up new methods of payment including a GoFundMe appeal and a Patreon account.

Share this:

• Facebook
• X
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• More
• 
  

Rubio Says the US Launched a War With Iran Because Israel Was Planning To Attack

by Dave DeCamp | March 2, 2026 at 5:23 pm ET | Iran, Israel

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday said that the US launched a war against Iran because Israel was planning to attack, an admission that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu steered the US into the conflict.

“It was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States, Israel, or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States,” Rubio told reporters.

“If we stood and waited for that attack to come first, before we hit them, we would have suffered much higher casualties. And so the president made the very wise decision — we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces,” he said.
Secretary Marco Rubio visits the Western Wall in Jerusalem, September 14, 2025. (Official State Department photo by Freddie Everett)

Rubio’s comments align with reporting from The New York Times that said when Tucker Carlson recently met with President Trump and tried to convince him not to launch a war with Iran, the president said he had no choice but to join a strike that Israel would launch.

The Times report said that Netanyahu was determined to ensure that the negotiations between the US and Iran wouldn’t get in the way of planning for a joint US-Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic.

But Trump and his top officials tried to sell the war as being related to Iran’s nuclear program despite insisting that it was “obliterated” by the June 2025 US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Vice President JD Vance even claimed that there was evidence Iran may be trying to build a nuclear weapon.

Now that the war has started, the Trump administration is sending mixed messages about the goal. President Trump suggested in his first statement that he is pursuing regime change, and the initial round of US-Israeli attacks killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but Rubio said on Monday that the goal was aimed at eliminating the “threat” posed by Iran’s missiles.

“The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets. That is what it is focused on doing right now, and it’s doing quite successfully,” he said.

When asked for a timeline, Rubio said the war will last “as long as it takes” for the US to achieve its objectives.
Share this:

    Facebook X Pinterest LinkedIn More