Follow us on social

Lobby Horse

How the weapons industry pushed Trump toward war with Iran

The president watched a lot of Fox News, which was dominated by defense contractor voices advocating US strikes

Reporting | QiOSK

According to a lengthy report by the New York Times, President Trump’s decision on June 22 to authorize airstrikes at nuclear sites across Iran was influenced in part by Fox News. For days, Trump was fed a steady diet of pro-war personalities on the cable channel, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, and hardline anti-Iran congressional hawks like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

However, according to an RS analysis, many other Fox guests were funded by the defense industry, which absolutely stood to gain from the shift to a hot war between Israel and the U.S. and Iran. One by one, these guests lined up on White House TV screens to praise Israel’s strikes and urge further U.S. involvement. As Palantir Founder and CEO Alex Karp put it bluntly back in 2022, “bad times are very good for Palantir.” Of course, many of these conflicts of interest were not disclosed on air.

One of Karp’s employees, former Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), appeared on Fox praising Israel’s war campaign against Iran. “I think beyond the physical destruction that Israel’s attacks have imposed, there is a sort of mental destruction underway, right? Taking out key leadership in the IRGC, taking out 8 of the 13 top Iranian scientists,” he said in a reference to the assassination of senior officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “I do think we’ve set the nuclear program back, but this is the early stage of what will be a multi-phase complex back and forth, and [it is] important that we, America, stand firmly behind our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.”

Gallagher is now the head of defense at Palantir, a military contractor that provides AI-enabled targeting capabilities. Last year Palantir signed an agreement with the Israeli Ministry of Defense to “harness Palantir’s advanced technology in support of war-related missions.”

Fox News contributor Gen. Jack Keane (ret.) also made several appearances to discuss the war, making the case for using B-2s and bunker-buster bombs in Iran. Keane was quick to rule out alternatives. “There are options that the Israelis have,” he said, “but none of those options are as good as the option that we have.”

Keane, a prominent champion of the “surge” of U.S. forces in Iraq 17 years ago, is a former member of the board at General Dynamics, and his think tank, the Institute for the Study of War, receives funding from the company. According to his last SEC filing in 2018, Keane owned over 14,000 shares of General Dynamics stock, over $4 million in today’s value (it’s unclear how much of that, if any, he still owns today).

A General Dynamics' Ohio class submarine, likely the USS Georgia, played a role in the U.S. attack on Iran, launching more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles at targets in Iran. Secretary of the Navy John Phelan told lawmakers that the submarine “performed exceptionally, causing significant damage to Iran’s nuclear capacity” in the attack on Iran.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus also appeared on Fox News several times before and after the U.S. strike. On June 17, Petraeus told Fox anchor Martha MacCallum that the president has two choices. “One is to amplify the ultimatum he has already given of unconditional surrender and say…you agree to give up all of your nuclear enterprise, there’s going to be no negotiations about whatsoever, and to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to have complete inspection rights, or we’re going to take out the Fordow reactor enrichment complex.”

Petraeus is a partner at KKR, a private equity firm that is a major investor in the largest property management platform in Israel, Guesty, and owns or invests in many defense companies, including Israeli cybersecurity firms. Petraeus is also a strategic adviser for Israeli-founded cybersecurity firm Semperis.

Brian Hook, vice chairman for global investments at the defense-focused private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management who headed Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran during Trump’s first term, also appeared on Fox News in the days leading up to the U.S. strikes. “They’ve [Israel] been bombing the facilities that do nuclear research. And I think that campaign is going to continue. As I said, it’s multifaceted and it has been plotted for years, and Israel has now sprung the mousetrap,” he said.

Among other investments, Cerberus owns a hypersonics company and a private military company that trained the assassins of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Of course, many of the loudest pro-war voices on Fox — such as Sean Hannity and Mark Levin — do not work for the defense industry. And others simply do not disclose anything publicly about their funding so we can’t always know.

Long-time Iraq hawk Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, made ten appearances on Fox News, Fox Business, and LiveNOW from Fox in between Israel’s strikes on Iran and the U.S. decision to directly join the war. Dubowitz spent his airtime calling on President Trump to dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies does not disclose its funding sources.

On June 23, Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, though it remains to be seen whether the parties will uphold the agreement. The pro-war onslaught on Fox throughout the war was relentless, with prominent right-wing dissenters such as Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson nowhere to be found. Some Trump advisers privately lamented that high-profile dissenters like Carlson were absent from Fox’s coverage because it meant “Trump was not hearing much of the other side of the debate.” Carlson said it “feels like Fox is playing a central role in the pro-war push,” calling his former employer “warmongers.”

This is not the first time military contractors took to media airwaves to push for war. Before invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. government embarked on a “meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein.”

Unbeknownst to the public at the time, military contractors helped out with the media push. Former Gen. Barry McCaffrey (ret.) consistently appeared on major networks while serving on the board of DynCorp, a military contractor that trained Iraqi security forces. Initially, he described the Iraqi Security Forces as “badly equipped, badly trained, politically unreliable.” Once he joined Dyncorp’s board, he changed his tune, telling MSNBC’s Brian Williams that “the Iraqi security forces are real.” Dyncorp’s stock went up 87 percent that year, despite reports of ineffective training.

Today, cable viewers are still being fed modern-day McCaffreys, blurring the lines between public and private interest and leaving us with the same question: whose war is this really, and who stands to profit?


Top image credit: Khody Akhavi via AI
Reporting | QiOSK
Pedro Sanchez
Top image credit: Prime Minister of Spain Pedro Sanchez during the summit of Heads of State and Government of the European Union at the European Council in Brussels in Belgium the 26th of July 2025, Martin Bertrand / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect

Spain's break from Europe on Gaza is more reaction than vision

Europe

The final stage of the Vuelta a España, Spain’s premier cycling race, was abandoned in chaos on Sunday. Pro-Palestinian protesters, chanting “they will not pass,” overturned barriers and occupied the route in Madrid, forcing organizers to cancel the finale and its podium ceremony. The demonstrators’ target was the participation of an Israeli team. In a statement that captured the moment, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez expressed his “deep admiration for the Spanish people mobilizing for just causes like Palestine.”

The event was a vivid public manifestation of a potent political sentiment in Spain — one that the Sánchez government has both responded to and, through its foreign policy, legitimized. This dynamic has propelled Spain into becoming the European Union’s most vocal dissenting voice on the war in Gaza, marking a significant break from the transatlantic foreign policy orthodoxy.

Sanchez’s support for the protesters was not merely rhetorical. On Monday, he escalated his stance, explicitly calling for Israel to be barred from international sports competitions, drawing a direct parallel to the exclusion of Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. “Our position is clear and categorical: as long as the barbarity continues, neither Russia nor Israel should participate in any international competition,” he said. This position, which angered Israel and Spanish conservatives alike, was further amplified by his culture minister, who suggested Spain should boycott next year’s Eurovision Song Contest if Israel participates.

More significantly, it emerged that his government had backed its strong words with concrete action, cancelling a €700 million ($825 million) contract for Israeli-designed rocket launchers. This move, following an earlier announcement of measures aimed at stopping what it called “the genocide in Gaza,” demonstrates a willingness to leverage economic and diplomatic tools that other EU capitals have avoided.

Sánchez, a master political survivalist, has not undergone a grand ideological conversion to anti-interventionism. Instead, he has proven highly adept at reading and navigating domestic political currents. His government’s stance on Israel and Palestine is a pragmatic reflection of his coalition that depends on the support of the left for which this is a non-negotiable priority.

This instinct for pragmatic divergence extends beyond Gaza. Sánchez has flatly refused to commit to NATO’s target of spending 5% of GDP on defense demanded by the U.S. President Donald Trump and embraced by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, citing budgetary constraints and social priorities.

Furthermore, Spain has courted a role as a facilitator between great powers. This ambition was realized when Madrid hosted a critical high level meeting between U.S. and Chinese trade officials on September 15 — a meeting Trump lauded as successful while reaffirming “a very strong relationship” between the U.S. and China. This outreach is part of a consistent policy; Sánchez’s own visit to Beijing, at a time when other EU leaders like the high representative for foreign policy Kaja Kallas were ratcheting up anti-Chinese rhetoric, signals a deliberate pursuit of pragmatic economic ties over ideological confrontation.

Yet, for all these breaks with the mainstream, Sánchez’s foreign policy is riddled with a fundamental contradiction. On Ukraine, his government remains in alignment with the hardline Brussels consensus. This alignment is most clearly embodied by his proxy in Brussels, Iratxe García Pérez, the leader of the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group in the European Parliament. In a stark display of this hawkishness, García Pérez used the platform of the State of the Union debate with the EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to champion the demand to outright seize frozen Russian sovereign assets.

This reckless stance, which reflects the EU’s broader hawkish drift on Ukraine, is thankfully tempered only by a lack of power to implement it, rendering it largely a symbolic act of virtue signaling. The move is not just of dubious legality; it is a significant error in statecraft. It would destroy international trust in the Eurozone as a safe repository for assets. Most critically, it would vaporize a key bargaining chip that could be essential in securing a future negotiated settlement with Russia. It is a case of ideological posturing overriding strategic calculation.

This contradiction reveals the core of Sánchez’s doctrine: it is circumstantial, not convictional. His breaks with orthodoxy on Israel, defense spending and China are significant, but driven, to a large degree, by the necessity of domestic coalition management. His alignment on Ukraine is the path of least resistance within the EU mainstream, requiring no difficult choices that would upset his centrist instincts or his international standing.

Therefore, Sánchez is no Spanish De Gaulle articulating a grand sovereigntist strategic vision. He is a fascinating case study in the fragmentation of European foreign policy. He demonstrates that even within the heart of the Western mainstream which he represents, dissent on specific issues like Gaza and rearmament is not only possible but increasingly politically necessary.

However, his failure to apply the same pragmatic, national interest lens to Ukraine — opting instead for the bloc’s thoughtless escalation — proves that his policy is more a product of domestic political arithmetic than coherent strategic vision. He is a weathervane, not a compass — but even a weathervane can indicate a shift in the wind, and the wind in Spain is blowing away from unconditional Atlanticism.

US think tanks are the world's least transparent
Top image credit: Metamorworks via shutterstock.com

US think tanks are the world's least transparent

Washington Politics

According to a new survey, North American think tanks are tied as the least transparent of any region. The poll, conducted by On Think Tanks, surveyed 335 think tanks from over 100 countries. The accompanying report, released today, found that only 35% of North American think tanks (mostly from the U.S.) that responded to the survey disclose funding sources. By comparison, 67% of Asian think tanks and 58% of African think tanks disclose their funding sources.

And there are signs that think tank funding transparency is trending towards more opacity. Just last month, the Center for American Progress — a major center-left think tank with $46 million in annual revenue — announced that it would no longer disclose its donors. The think tank said it was taking this “temporary protective step” out of concern that the Trump administration could target them.

keep readingShow less
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

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.