Hundreds of Iranian civility society activists have condemned the recent attack on the country’s nuclear facility, which they say was aimed at derailing talks in Vienna on reviving the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA.
Diplomats from Britain, China, France, Germany, Iran, and Russia are currently meeting in Vienna to reach an agreement on the necessary steps for bring the United States and Iran into compliance with the 2015 accord. A U.S. delegation is also in Vienna but not talking directly to Iranian diplomats.
In a collective statement, nearly 300 prominent Iranian academics, artists, authors, and pro-democracy activists described the recent sabotage at the country’s Natanz nuclear enrichment facility as “nuclear terrorism.”
Accusing Israel of being behind the attack, the activists say that the operation’s ultimate goal was to scuttle diplomacy between Iran and world powers on how to revive the 2015 nuclear agreement, which former President Trump unilaterally abandoned in 2018. After withdrawing from the deal, the United States reimposed stringent economic sanctions on Iran that had been lifted under the JCPOA in return for the country scaling back its nuclear program.
Many in Iran’s pro-democracy movement believe that U.S. sanctions have taken a particularly heavy toll on the country.
Both before and after the JCPOA’s finalization in July 2015, many leading Iranian dissidents, activists, and political prisoners wrote letters to former President Obama and Congress expressing their support for diplomacy and the removal of U.S. sanctions on Iran.
According to the recent civil society statement, there are strong signs that the recent attack on the Natanz facility may have been an attempt to provoke Iran into withdrawing from the talks in Vienna. The activists urged their government to exercise caution in response to the attack on the Natanz facility and to pursue the matter through the U.N. Security Council. The “most logical and powerful response” to such an attack, they insist, is progress in talks on the JCPOA’s revival. They also call on the United Nations to launch a probe in order to prevent similar attacks from taking place in the future.
Despite the support of prominent civil society groups for the lifting of sanctions and the revival of the JCPOA, proponents of hawkish policies continue to point to Iran’s human rights record and democratic deficit as justification for more sanctions on Iran.
Sajjad Safaei is a postdoc fellow at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology. He obtained his PhD from Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg for his research on different forms of violence, with a particular focus on so-called "barbaric" punishments and the role in shaping international relations as well as the politics of humanitarian action. He writes regularly on Middle East affairs with a particular focus on Iran.
Ali Akbar Salehi, Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (Photo: Alexandros Michailidis via shutterstock.com)
What’s worse than the Pentagon spending taxpayer dollars on golf courses? Spending taxpayer dollars on golf courses that nobody uses.
Even as the Department of Defense renovates some of its 145 golf courses, the Army acknowledged in a new Pentagon study on excess capacity that it owns at least six facilities labeled “Golf Club House and Sales” that almost no one uses. The Navy owns at least two more golf facilities that it listed as underutilized.
But the problem goes far beyond golf courses. The Pentagon oversees some $4.1 trillion in assets and 26.7 million acres of land — a sprawling network of military installations across the United States and the globe. Wasted space and resources in that network could be squeezing taxpayers out of billions of dollars.
A Defense Department official familiar with the data included in the new report, which is only available for viewing in person at the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in Congress, explained to RS that the Pentagon’s problem of empty buildings has gotten out of hand.
“Most installations are incentivized to hang onto empty or partially empty spaces until they know for sure that the building is totally failing,” they said. Otherwise, installations will lose their funding.
In other words, the Pentagon has a phantom infrastructure problem made up of empty storage warehouses and training facilities that collect dust. The only thing real about them is the cost, brought to you by the U.S. taxpayer.
But just how bad has this problem gotten? Well, the Pentagon itself doesn’t have a consistent answer, meaning the real number of underused facilities could be much higher.
The last time the Pentagon tried to answer this question publicly was in a 2017 infrastructure capacity report, which found that roughly 20 percent of the Pentagon’s infrastructure was excess to need.
However, this new report — responding to a requirement in the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which the House and Senate Armed Services Committees just received this month — tells a different story. Taken together, these two reports reveal flawed and incongruous systems for assessing the Pentagon’s costly excess infrastructure capacity, which in turn serve to undermine the case for reducing this excess infrastructure through a new round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).
In the new report, dated September 2024, each of the military service branches responded separately to a list of ten prompts included in the NDAA. One of these prompts seeks information on the total number of excess assets (i.e. buildings) and their total square footage. Another requests information on “the number of underused facilities with the associated use rate…”
One of the more obvious shortcomings of this report is that the Army is the only military service that listed total assets and their square footage alongside excess assets and their square footage; the Navy and the Air Force simply listed excess assets and square footage, obscuring the percentage of their assets that are excess to need. By searching a General Services Administration (GSA) database of government property, we were able to correct for this shortcoming (though numbers represent our best estimate because GSA’s methodology for assessing total assets may differ from the Pentagon’s).
The following table compares the 2024 report’s findings (and conclusions drawn from them based on GSA data) to findings in the 2017 report.
Taken at face value, this data appears to show that the Pentagon’s excess infrastructure has shrunk significantly in the seven-and-a-half years since its last public report on infrastructure capacity.
In particular, the Air Force may appear as if it has unlocked the secret to shedding excess capacity without the politically challenging work of a new BRAC process, having cut excess capacity from around 30 percent to less than 0.1 percent in under eight years. That news might come as a surprise to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allen, who has been pointing to the Air Force’s roughly 30 percent excess infrastructure in a dispute with lawmakers over the Pentagon’s backlog of deferred maintenance at its facilities.
Still, the new data would be welcome news, if it were sound. Unfortunately, methodological differences between the reports make it difficult to assess progress, and insight from an official familiar with the data suggests the new numbers are severely underestimated.
For one, Pentagon officials responsible for listing excess capacity in the report are incentivized to underreport, according to the Department of Defense official who was granted anonymity to discuss the report.
“Facility utilization data included in the report varies widely in its accuracy and timeliness,” they said. “The information is self-reported, labor-intensive to compile, and installations have an incentive to avoid declaring facilities as ‘excess’ because once they change the facility status from ‘active’ to ‘excess,’ the projected sustainment funding associated with the square footage of the facility (or other unit of measure) will drop by 85%.”
This not only makes access to accurate information exceedingly difficult, but it also creates a perverse incentive structure in which installations hang onto empty and partially empty spaces.
“For instance,” the official explained, “if an installation is receiving $250,000 annually in sustainment funding for a warehouse — but the base no longer needs or uses the warehouse — the installation commander and their public works director will likely keep the warehouse listed as ‘active’ rather than changing its real property status as ‘excess’ to avoid slashing their sustainment funds down to a meager $37,500 per year. While it’s empty and locked or boarded up, they can spend almost nothing on it, but still use the $250,000 a year for the installation and use that money on other needed repair and sustainment projects across the base.”
The new study acknowledges some issues with the data. For instance, the Army reported that it lacks “the manpower to do required utilization studies.” In other instances, military departments just blatantly ignored the data request, providing incomplete answers. But the study does not address the fundamentally perverse incentive for installations to underreport excess capacity.
The 2017 report by contrast, paints a much starker picture regarding Pentagon waste. Rather than detailing individual installations, that study assessed excess capacity by service using a baseline year of 1989 to maintain consistency with earlier infrastructure capacity reports.
However, the report itself still underscores that its findings are highly conservative, pointing to its assumption that there was not excess capacity in 1989. As the methodology section explains, “using 1989 as a baseline indicates the excess found in this report is likely conservative because significant excess existed in 1989, as evidenced by the subsequent BRAC closures.”
The Pentagon has said that past BRAC rounds are collectively saving taxpayers some $12 billion per year. Congress should work to authorize a new round of BRAC, which could save taxpayers additional billions of dollars per year, without further delay.
As a start, lawmakers should include a new reporting requirement in this year’s NDAA that requires the Pentagon to report on its excess infrastructure capacity on an annual or biennial basis and lays out clear parameters around methodology to ensure accuracy and consistency across reports. Failing that, lawmakers and taxpayers will continue to be kept in the dark as to the true scale of the Pentagon’s waste and the squandering of taxpayer dollars it entails.
The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.
When it comes from the Trump White House
Stop reading now if you don’t like math.
There were plenty of headlines over the weekend about how President Donald Trump delivered on his pledge to try to boost U.S. defense spending to $1 trillion(PDF) in 2026. But — surprise! — he did it with smoky mirrors and sketchy math. In reality, Trump is seeking “only” $893 billion for the Pentagon next year. But, like a carnival huckster with a good SAT math score, the administration added $113 billion contained in a separate, one-time Republican congressional reconciliation bill. That pushes the total sought to, um, $1.01 trillion. Coincidence, or sideshow sales job? You decide!
That bit of May 2 legislative legerdemain is why Republican anger over the trillion dollars topped muted Democratic opposition to the historically high budget proposal. The Trump administration “is not requesting a trillion-dollar budget,” griped Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), who chairs the armed services committee. Senator Mitch McConnell, (R-KY), who chairs the appropriations committee’s defense subcommittee, agreed. Such “accounting gimmicks” will leave the U.S. military impoverished, he said, unable to counter “China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and radical terrorists.”
Both senators accused Trump of the worst possible sin: coming up with a military budget not much different from Joe Biden’s. Given a supine Congress and the ridiculous caterwauling calls that the nation is starving its armed forces, the view from here is that lawmakers will approve Trump’s request. Then they’ll ladle on some extra lard for good measure. Trump’s top defense priorities include his Golden Dome missile shield (and no, that Madison Avenue moniker officially doesn’t refer to the presidential pate), nuclear weapons, and ship-building.
Mind you, national security has been costing the country well north of a mind-blowing $1 trillion annually recently, assuming a full and complete accounting (something else that’s stealthy at the Pentagon, which has never passed an audit). For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs — which, for some strange reason, isn’t part of the U.S. military budget — now spends $350 billion a year.
Three days before Trump’s announcement, the Government Accountability Office reported that the Pentagon itself acknowledged it found “confirmed fraud” totaled $10.8 billion between 2017 and 2024. “The full extent of fraud affecting DOD is not known,” the GAO said, “but is potentially significant.”
But not to worry. When you’re spending a trillion dollars a year, no matter where it comes from, you don’t have to fret much about waste.
Projected cost of U.S. nuclear forces skyrocket
The U.S. government plans to spend $946 billion through 2034 to buy and operate the nation’s nuclear weapons. That’s a 25% hike over 2023’s estimated cost for the decade ending in 2032, the Congressional Budget Office reported April 24. And that 2023 cost of $756 billion was $122 billion more (19%) than the 2021 projection. Let’s call it ICBMnflation.
The latest estimate includes $357 billion to operate the nukes we’ve got, and $309 billion to buy new ones and the platforms — largely subs, bombers and missiles — to deliver them. That doesn’t include all of the stunning 81% cost growth associated with the troubled Sentinel ICBM program now under development (and it’s getting worse). CBO estimates the U.S. will also spend $79 billion improving command and control of its nuclear forces over the coming decade, and $72 billion for upgrades to its nuclear-weapon labs.
CBO also is padding the cost estimates of the Pentagon and Department of Energy (which builds the nation’s nuclear weapons) by $129 billion. “That amount represents CBO’s estimate of additional costs that would be incurred over the 2025–2034 period if the costs for nuclear programs grew at roughly the same rates that costs for similar programs have grown in the past,” the CBO report said (taxpayers might ask why the Defense Department doesn’t do that on its own).
This insane spending on weapons that no sane person wants fired is taking place as the U.S., China, and Russia are engaged in a stubborn showdown over the size and shape of their nuclear arsenals. “There’s no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons,” Trump said in February. “You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”
Stop dilly-dallying and start doing, Mr. President, before it’s too late.
The Army gets its latest marching orders
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth lobbed a 4-page memo(PDF) into Army HQs April 30 designed to obliterate inefficiency and maximize killing. “To build a leaner, more lethal force, the Army must transform at an accelerated pace by divesting outdated, redundant, and inefficient programs,” he ordered, “as well as restructuring headquarters and acquisition systems.”
Good luck with that, SECDEF!
The Bunker’s all for a better, cheaper Army, but the memo is simply a wish list handed down from the E-ring. Like so much Pentagon-brass boilerplate, there’s no roadmap showing how to get it done. Hegseth’s mandate to fold Army Futures Command into the service’s Training and Doctrine Command isn’t sufficient, R. D. Hooker, Jr., a retired Army colonel now at Harvard, toldDefense One. “This is probably a move in the right direction, but much more detail is needed to fully assess,” he said, adding: “Overhauling the entire acquisition process is the more fundamental need.”
That’s for sure. After all, it was only seven years ago — during Trump’s first term — that Army Futures Command was created as the key to the Army’s, well, future. “Our Futures Command will have a singular focus: to make Soldiers and leaders more effective and more lethal today and in the future,” General John M. Murray, first head of Futures Command said as the new outfit stood up in 2018.
As the Trump administration continues to cashier and otherwise thin the ranks of its senior military officers, the Xi administration is doing the same in China, and risking their trust, Phillip C. Saunders and Joel Wuthnow of the Pentagon’s National Defense University wrote May 5 in the New York Times.
President George H.W. Bush said the U.S. had “kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all” after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But Casey Chalk argued in The Federalist April 30 that the nation actually continues to suffer from a Vietnam hangover 50 years after the war in Southeast Asia wrapped up.
Global military spending hit $2.7 trillion in 2024, a 9.4% hike and the steepest since 1988, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said April 28, in its annual accounting on the financial costs of waging and readying for war.
A trillion thanks for stopping by The Bunker this week. Consider forwarding this on to curious citizens so they can subscribe here.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt speaks during 2023 National Action Network (NAN) Triumph Awards at Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York on October 16, 2023 (lev radin / Shutterstock.com)
The Anti-Defamation League’s mission is to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all.”
But over the past year that mission has stretched to include defending some of the world’s biggest weapons companies from shareholder proposals calling for reporting on the human rights impact of their weapons, according to a review of SEC filings, proving itself an important ally for weapons and tech firms seeking to profit from sales of weapons technologies to Israel and avoid accountability for the ways in which their products are used on Palestinians.
The ADL’s battle with faith-based shareholder advocacy occurs alongside a majority of Americans now holding unfavorable views of Israel (an 11% increase since before the start of Israel’s war in Gaza), a time when efforts to hold weapons and tech companies accountable for their role in attacks on Palestinian civilians may find increasing support.
Last October, Investor Advocates for Social Justice (IASJ) — a group representing “investors with faith-based values who seek to leverage their investments to advance human rights, climate justice, racial equity, and the common good” — filed a shareholder proposal on behalf of Sisters of St. Frances of Philadelphia, calling for Lockheed Martin to compile a report on “the alignment of its political activities (including direct and indirect lobbying and political and electioneering expenditures) with its Human Rights Policy.”
“F-35s have been used repeatedly by Israeli forces to target Palestinian civilians in Gaza and are connected to apparent war crimes,” said the proposal. “Despite this, in June 2024, Israel signed a $3 billion deal with Lockheed to sell 25 F-35s to Israel.”
And in another proposal, filed on behalf of Francsiscan Sisters of Allegany NY in November, IASJ called for a similar report from General Dynamics, citing the company’s supply “...of artillery munitions and bombs to Israel, which have been reportedly used in attacks on Palestinian civilians in Gaza, that may constitute war crimes, and, according to the International Court of Justice, may plausibly amount to genocide.”
“Although, in June 2024, UN experts called on companies to immediately end arms transfers to Israel, even if approved by State export licensing, or risk complicity in violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, GD continues to sell weapons to Israel,” said the proposal.
Last month, the ADL filed their own opposition to bothproposals and issued a press release accusing the proposals of being motivated by antisemitism and claimed the proposals contain “...deeply misleading and inflammatory allegations, accusing General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin of complicity in war crimes—and, in the case of General Dynamics, even genocide—due to their lawful defense partnerships with Israel.”
“These claims are false, defamatory, and part of a broader campaign aimed at delegitimizing Israel’s right to self-defense and existence,” said the ADL.
"We are confounded by suggestions that our shareholder proposals advance antisemitism,” IASJ told Responsible Statecraft. “IASJ condemns antisemitism, in all its forms, and recognizes that it poses a significant threat to the human rights of Jewish communities worldwide. As representatives of faith-based investors, we are committed to advancing the highest standard of human rights and the common good in our investors’ portfolio companies."
For much of the Gaza War, the ADL has combated shareholder advocacy pushing for human rights accountability at weapons and technology companies.
In November 2023, IASJ filed a shareholder proposal at RTX (formerly known as a Raytheon) calling on Raytheon’s board of directors to “...publish a report, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, with the results of a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA), examining Raytheon’s actual and potential human rights impacts associated with high-risk products and services, including those in conflict-affected areas and/or those violating international law.”
“Raytheon’s products have been directly linked to human rights violations in Yemen,” said IASJ’s filing on behalf of School Sisters of Notre Dame Cooperative Investment Fund, a Catholic institutional investor. “The Company was most recently connected to 80 civilian deaths in a 2022 airstrike by the Saudi-led coalition, potentially amounting to war crimes. Raytheon also sells weapons to Israel, which are used to maintain the system of apartheid.”
IASJ followed its Raytheon proposal with a similar shareholder proposal on behalf of American Baptist Home Mission Societies in December 2023, calling for Amazon to conduct “an independent third-party report, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, assessing Amazon’s customer due diligence process to determine whether customers’ use of its products and services with surveillance, computer vision, or cloud storage capabilities contributes to human rights violations or violates international humanitarian law.”
The group highlighted Amazon’s work with governments “with a history of rights-violating behavior,” including, “The Israeli government’s ‘Project Nimbus,’ protested by Amazon employees, uses AWS to support the apartheid system under which Palestinians are surveilled, unlawfully detained, and tortured.”
The ADL urged shareholders to vote against both proposals, telling shareholders at bothcompanies that, “The proposal and supporting statement include language that is false and misleading, could embolden antisemitism in society, and we believe seeks to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.”
“Labeling Israel as an apartheid state risks blurring the lines between criticism of Israeli policies and feeding into antisemitic assertions which demonize the Jewish state and the Jewish connection to Israel,” the ADL told shareholders. “Moreover, falsely singling out Israel with a term linked to severe injustice and discrimination could embolden hostility directed against Jews in the United States and beyond. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), antisemitic incidents in the US have surged by 360 percent since October 7, 2023.”
While the ADL took particular issue with the use of “apartheid,” using the term to characterize Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as apartheid is in line with assessments made by prominent human rights groups, including: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Israel’s primary human rights group, B’TSelem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories) and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter who all highlighted the discriminatory systems of laws and restrictions on movement imposed on Israeli settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank.
The IASJ proposals at Amazon and Raytheon failed to win necessary support from shareholders and the ADL cheered its success, boasting of its shareholder advocacy that “focused on combating antisemitism & hate, supporting Israel, and addressing critical Tikkun Olam issues.”
General Dynamics’ shareholders will vote on the IASJ proposal at its board meeting today, May 7, and Lockheed’s shareholders will vote on May 9th.
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.