2026 marks yet another year Americans find themselves watching Washington and its media surrogates prepare the country for war in the Middle East. Speaking on Iran, President Donald Trump said that “either we reach a deal, or we’ll have to do something very tough.” He has deployed what he called a “massive armada” to the region and insisted that Iran has only a month to capitulate or face a “very difficult time.” His demands no longer focus solely on the nuclear program; Trump now insists on ending all uranium enrichment, severing Tehran’s ties to regional militias, and placing strict limits on Iran’s ballistic‑missile stockpile. He said a fair agreement would mean “no nuclear weapons, no missiles.” Such conditions, issued by a nation with an arsenal of its own, amount to complete disarmament and have led observers to conclude that the administration is setting Iran up to fail so it can justify another round of attacks. Last June he authorized the bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities, yet he now argues that more force will be needed if Tehran refuses to accept total capitulation.
Hard‑line commentators have joined the chorus. Conservative media host Mark Levin spoke gleefully about the United States organizing a major attack on Iran and that “this regime must be destroyed,” even issuing a direct threat to Iran’s supreme leader. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has adopted similar maximalist rhetoric. Netanyahu has signaled he favors the use of force to topple Iran’s government or at least cripple its missile defenses and that he and his advisors believe Washington should exploit Iran’s recent unrest to end the Islamic Republic’s 47‑year rule. At a February conference he demanded that all enriched uranium be removed from Iran and that any deal include dismantlement of enrichment infrastructure and resolution of the “ballistic‑missile issue” – conditions that would leave Iran defenseless. Tehran has said its ballistic‑missile program is a “firmly established” part of its deterrence and not open for negotiation, but Trump echoed Netanyahu’s stance, saying a fair deal means “no nuclear weapons, no missiles.” These extreme and shifting demands appear less about arms control than about engineering an impasse that can be used to rationalize war.
Repeating Mistakes: The Heavy Burden of Intervention
Long before the current Iran standoff, America’s interventionist foreign policy had left deep scars. The Iraq War of 2003 – championed by a coalition of neoconservatives and assertive nationalists – killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, displaced millions, and cost the United States roughly half a trillion dollars. Brookings Institution analysts noted that war planners believed American power could swiftly conquer threats and spread democracy, but their expectations proved disastrously wrong. The war shattered Iraq’s infrastructure, destabilized the region, and contributed to the rise of extremist groups.
The 20‑year Global War on Terror likewise drained the nation’s resources. Researchers at Brown University’s Costs of War project calculated that the post‑9/11 conflicts have cost over $8 trillion and caused more than 900 000 deaths. Co‑director Catherine Lutz observed that these wars have been “long, complex, horrific and unsuccessful” and that they have absorbed much of the federal discretionary budget. Even after the shooting stops, Americans will be paying for these interventions; future medical care for veterans of the war on terror is estimated to cost at least $2.2 trillion.
These numbers show that war is not just a temporary adventure; it leaves generations of soldiers and civilians grappling with trauma and disability while siphoning away resources that might otherwise build schools, roads, or hospitals. The War Party – composed of hawks from both major U.S. political parties – has promoted these conflicts under the guise of national security, yet the record reveals little security for ordinary Americans and immense suffering abroad.
Recruitment, War Weariness, and a Rebound
The human toll of two decades of war has been felt in military recruiting. In the first years after the September 11 attacks, patriotic fervour kept enlistment high, but by the early 2020s the Pentagon was facing the worst recruiting crisis since 1973. A Modern War Institute analysis from late 2023 noted that the Department of Defense missed its recruiting goals across all branches; the Army fell more than 10,000 recruits short of its 2022 target, the Air Force by just over 2,000, and the Navy by about 7,000. Public fatigue with endless wars and a strong U.S. labor market made enlistment increasingly unappealing.
Yet recruitment has rebounded sharply since 2025. After a 40‑year decline that hit a low in 2022, enlistment rose by 14% in fiscal 2024 and all service branches, except the Space Force, were on track to meet or exceed their goals. By fiscal 2025, the active Army achieved 101.72% of its recruiting goal, the Navy 108.61%, the Air Force 100.22%, the Space Force 102.89%, and the Marine Corps 100%. Service officials boasted that the delayed entry program for 2026 was nearly 40% filled.
Why the turn‑around? Recruiting officers credit improved pay, tuition benefits and advertising, but there is also a political dimension. Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign was framed as an anti‑war crusade. He promised to “remove the warmongers and America‑last globalists” and claimed he would turn the page forever on “stupid days of never‑ending wars.” During the campaign he even argued he was the only recent president who had not started a war. Such rhetoric likely reassured potential recruits that enlisting in 2025 would not mean fighting in another Middle Eastern quagmire. However, this optimism proved misplaced.
The Bipartisan War Party
The lesson of the past quarter‑century is that the appetite for intervention in Washington is bipartisan. Doug Bandow at the Cato Institute describes an “unofficial but bipartisan War Party” whose members “thrive on bad news,” constantly citing new threats to justify ever‑larger military budgets. Interventionists routinely claim the world is more dangerous than ever, yet such rhetoric primarily serves to block any cut to defense spending.
The War Party’s grip has allowed the United States to maintain roughly 750 military bases in 80 countries. In 2024 the U.S. military budget reached $842 billion, and when one adds spending on homeland security, diplomacy and veterans’ benefits, the national security tab climbed above $1.3 trillion. War is good business for contractors and for politicians who can steer military contracts to their districts. Perhaps abolishing the draft in 1973 defanged the anti‑war movement and allowed elites to pursue wars without widespread protests. So long as interventions remain remote and casualties are borne by volunteers, the War Party rarely faces accountability.
This bipartisan consensus is not new. For decades both parties have made promises of peace, but then voted for invasions and interventions.
Ignorance is No Excuse: Don’t Enlist
Young Americans today have the benefit of decades of cautionary tales. They can see the disabled veterans, the spiraling costs, and the geopolitical disasters that have followed each intervention. When someone enlists in 2026, they are not simply signing up for patriotic service; they are volunteering to become an instrument of a regime that routinely wages aggressive wars and then claims immunity for its mistakes. To respond, “I was just following orders” is morally insufficient.
Anti‑war congressman Ron Paul once observed that “Peace is a powerful message” and that voters tend to support the candidate who promises to avoid war. A 2012 analysis of U.S. elections noted that Americans “tend to vote for the peace candidate.” Despite this, each peace candidate in recent memory has proven to be a fraud. The War Party’s dominance ensures that electioneering rhetoric rarely translates into restraint.
If political mechanisms cannot restrain war, the responsibility falls on individuals and communities. We must raise our children to see military service for what it is – the enforcement arm of an empire with a long record of unjust aggression. Enlistment should be regarded not as an honorable rite of passage but as a perilous choice that implicates individuals in injustices abroad. Those who have served and now see the futility of intervention have a special obligation to speak out. Instead of romanticizing their service, repentant veterans should stand outside recruitment offices and urge would‑be recruits to walk away.
The prospect of war with Iran reminds us that America’s War Party marches on regardless of evidence, morality, or public sentiment. Iran’s nuclear program does not justify a U.S. assault, yet politicians and pundits beat the drums of war just the same. Meanwhile, the same policymakers who promised to end “forever wars” have already ordered new bombings. Recruitment has recovered not because wars ended but because too many people believed those hollow promises.
America’s interventionist foreign policy is not simply the fault of a few bad actors; it is the product of a bipartisan system that rewards aggression and punishes restraint. The War Party will not be defeated at the ballot box so long as both major parties share its worldview. If we cannot beat them at the polls, our only option is to stay out of their wars. Refuse to enlist, and shame those who do.
If you can’t beat ’em, DON’T join ’em.
