Ties between Silicon Valley and the military industrial complexare not new. But the alliance of tech billionaires and venture capital titans working together to turn the Pentagon into a money spigot to fund far-future military gear is a novel conspiracy.
Their uniquely deranged rhetoric hits all the high notes: the revolutionizing power of unbridled capitalism, tech as a panacea for all social ills, the absolute necessity of U.S. military hegemony, and (as prime mover) our precarious position on the cusp of the Chinese century.
Like all conspiracies against decency, common sense, and restraint, this one has lots of speaker tours and expos. Here are some of the craziest things I remember hearing as I wandered around the recent Artificial Intelligence Expo for National Competitiveness in Washington, D.C., and my attempts at translation:
“The Pentagon can now lend money directly to companies — that’s a great deal for American taxpayers.”
Translation: You thought the previous six audits we failed were bad, wait until we have a loan portfolio to manage.
“Pentagon contracting needs a fundamental redesign — we can’t just tweak it anymore.”
Translation: We’ve been slowly eating away at DOD’s annoying oversight and regulatory units over the last 50 years but if you could just finally get rid of those people we’d appreciate it.
“Microsoft is part of the industrial base — but if we are to bring the full enterprise suite into classified government work this will require massive amounts of investment capital.”
Translation: The best things in life are free but operating any of our products is going to be like so expensive.
“A decade ago Silicon Valley didn’t agree with the DOD mission — they’ve done a complete 180.”
Translation: Retaliating against all those tech worker sit-ins and union organizing was really effective.
“The [pro-Palestine] peace activists are war activists — we are the peace activists!”
Translation: I couldn’t translate this one because I blacked out and hit my head on the Palantir-sponsored mocktail bar.
“China isn’t this compartmentalized.”
Translation: Watch as American corporate executives discover the benefits of central planning!
“Edge computing is the future.”
Translation: If you want to have 800 military installations all over the world you’ll need a lot of distributed computing sites, we’d like to introduce you to our new product line: “forward operating servers.”
“In terms of AI-driven weapons accuracy, there’s too much superfluous data that isn’t necessary for targeting.”
Translation: At least this is what the Israelis are telling us.
“Too much data used for AI targeting comes from open source intelligence.”
Translation: Give us direct unhindered access to all your classified databases forever until we’re all dead.
“Are we close to having ‘Google-fired missiles’?”
Translation: Google executives’ search for ad revenue destroyed your primary product so have you considered pivoting from building browsers to blowing stuff up?
“Quantum computing can overcome the military’s GPS denial issue in Ukraine.”
Translation: If you buy our really expensive autonomous systems that can’t function without GPS right now we promise they’ll work in 5 years, or maybe 10 — okay definitely no more than 20 years.
“We need to eliminate dis-synergy.”
Translation: Creating meaningless corporate neologisms makes me sound innovative and disruptive.
“The Replicator drone initiative can put thousands of attritable systems in place in 18-24 months, but what they need is to break down barriers so they can do this over and over and over again.”
Translation: Save 10% on weaponized drones when you sign up for our subscribe and save option!
“Watch as I remote pilot this new drone that uses automated sensors to avoid obstacles. It can even run on a cell phone hotspot in the middle of Riyadh!”
Translation: This demo worked great when [please wait….system loading] I was in the middle of the desert [please wait….system loading] but apparently the high speed internet here at [please wait….system loading] the convention center in Washington DC [please wait…]. Oh well, never mind.
“Lockheed Martin is building an AI factory.”
Translation: Our excellent staff of quality control agents are literally strapped to their cubicles with their eyelids pinned open to issue recalls for any product that is definitely being built by an AI and not some guy in a robotic exoskeleton playing Operation! using a closed circuit TV.
“These partnerships aren’t just about building a defense industrial base, they’re about building an American industrial base.”
Translation: About half of the supply chain parts are coming from China but it will still feel very American because you’ll be paying for it.
“The venture capital sector enables DOD to leverage tens of billions of dollars of VC money, which generates more money to invest in defense tech.”
Translation: We, the super rich, are the only thing standing between you and Red Dawn. I’ll soon be rendering your fat to make human candles for my apocalypse bunker but for now let’s make some great memories.
“But, if VCs keep losing on defense tech when firms and investors washout, that leveraging I just mentioned won’t happen.”
Translation: Remember when we all soiled our collective pants and you bailed out our investment accounts in Silicon Valley Bank even though they technically weren’t FDIC insured? Yeah we’d like to scale that up to infinity.
“Government needs to focus on capitalizing underlying industries (semiconductors, biochem) because VC can’t do that — it takes too much capital and the timeline is too long.”
Translation: Can the taxpayer front the money for the really big expensive hardware stuff so VCs can just invest in the more short-term profitable stuff? I single-handedly employ an entire firm of asset managers to oversee my Belgian Malinois’s stock portfolio so if you don’t do this you’re destroying American jobs.
“VCs focus on the really hard things (quantum computing, advanced materials) because they only want the big wins.”
Translation: None of this stuff will ever perform the operations we’re talking about but that’s okay because we create enough hype around it and get in early enough that we can cash out before that becomes a problem — for us. It’s still a big problem for you because you listened to us and now you’re broke.
Shana Marshall is a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute and associate director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
Top photo credit: Firefighters work at the scene of a damaged building in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The Israeli attack on Iran is an act of naked aggression, in clear violation of international law as enshrined in the United Nations Charter and of anything that can labeled a rules-based international order.
The attack continues and expands Israel’s record of profligate use of military force throughout its region, including serial attacks on Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and the Palestinian territories, including the devastation in the Gaza Strip that many informed and objective observers consider genocide. Israel has thrown its military weight around the Middle East far more than any other state and as such is the biggest destabilizing actor in the region.
The Israeli claim that its attack is “pre-emptive” is false. There was no indication of any imminent Iranian attack in the other direction. Nothing in press reporting or leaked intelligence suggested any such thing. Threats to initiate an attack, and associated inflammatory rhetoric, have for years come more from Israel than from Iran, whose own threats have uniformly been couched as warnings that Iran would respond vigorously if Israel attacked it.
Even the looser concept of a preventive war does not justify what Israel has done. The Iranian nuclear program has been the main focus, and Israel says its attack has hit, among other things, nuclear-related targets. But Iran demonstrated with its signature of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and adherence to it — until President Trump in his first term reneged on the agreement — that it was willing to close all paths to a possible Iranian nuclear weapon through peaceful diplomacy and strict international monitoring of its program.
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, perspective comes from considering who is the attacker as well as who was attacked. Israel is generally understood to have long had the sole nuclear weapons in the Middle East. It acquired that nuclear force clandestinely, outside of any international control regime, and partly by stealing nuclear material from the United States.
And yet, part of its rationale for its aggression against Iran is the mere possibility that Iran might someday acquire a weapon that it has never had and that it has demonstrated the willingness to forego in exchange for normal commercial and political relations with other states.
The Israeli attack is in any case counterproductive as far as nuclear nonproliferation is concerned, as was true of an earlier instance of Israel attacking another state’s nuclear facility. The underground nature of key Iranian nuclear infrastructure, and the knowledge that Iranian scientists will retain, severely limit the extent to which any Israeli airstrikes will set back Iran’s program. Meanwhile, an armed attack by a foreign adversary strengthens whatever voices there are in Tehran arguing that Iran needs to develop a nuclear weapon as a deterrent.
As for ballistic missiles, which Israel also mentioned as a target, no case has been made that of all the armed forces in the Middle East, Iran’s should be the only one stripped of this capability. This is especially true considering that it is Israel that has the biggest capability to deliver lethal ordnance from the air at a distance.
Curbing Iranian military capability is not the sole or even the prime motivation for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to attack Iran. Promoting maximum isolation and hatred of Iran has long been a principal Israeli foreign policy objective, in order to weaken a regional rival, distract attention from Israel’s own destabilizing actions, and prevent a rapprochement between Iran and Israel’s principal backer, the United States.
In furtherance of these objectives, Israel has opposed almost any diplomacy with Iran. Reducing the chance that current U.S.-Iranian negotiations will yield a new nuclear agreement certainly was an Israeli motivation behind the attack.
Netanyahu has additional motivations related to his need to keep a war going indefinitely to maintain his hard-right coalition in power and to delay fully facing corruption charges. With the slaughter in Gaza perhaps nearing a culmination point, beginning a new war against Iran appeared attractive to him.
Some press reports indicate Trump and his advisers knew the Israel attack was coming. In any event, there were enough indications of a coming attack that they should have known. The only appropriate U.S. response would have been to do everything possible to discourage the Israelis from attacking. We do not know that the administration did so.
Among the immediate consequences of the Israeli aggression is that people, including innocent people, will die, or have already been killed. More will die from the inevitable Iranian response. Despite recent efforts by the United States to reduce its vulnerability to a response by evacuating some personnel from the region, some of those killed or otherwise harmed are likely to be American.
In Tehran, the attack will play into the hands of Iranian hardliners, and there will some of the usual rally-round-the-flag effect. The prospects for success in the current nuclear negotiations have suffered a significant blow.
The risks of escalation into a wider war are significant. Some of the possible scenarios would involve U.S. forces.
Without a strong U.S. condemnation of the attack, the United States will share in the international opprobrium that Israel richly deserves.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks prior to signing "phase one" of the U.S.-China trade agreement in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., January 15, 2020. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
Following talks in London on Sunday and Monday, the United States and China reached what President Trump called a “deal.” More precisely, as China’s trade representative Li Chenggang put it, the two sides agreed “in principle” to “a framework” that might actually “implement the agreements” the two sides reached last week and last month.
This caution among Chinese negotiators reflects the tortuous path they have traveled to simply begin discussions with the Trump administration. The lessons from that experience might now stabilize the course of U.S.–China diplomacy, but perilous obstacles remain.
The London agreement takes the two sides back to where they were on May 12, at the conclusion of the talks in Geneva that represented the first meaningful diplomatic exchange between the U.S. and China under Trump. The Geneva agreement paused the quasi-embargo the two sides had imposed on each other in April and established a structure for trade negotiations. But it fell apart the next day when Trump’s Commerce Department imposed damaging new measures against China’s most successful multinational company, Huawei.
Additional hostile moves from Trump followed, including both economic restrictions and the announcement that the administration would “aggressively” revoke the visas of Chinese students studying in the U.S. In response, China delayed its promised release of rare earth exports, leading to shortages among major U.S. corporations.
The substance of the London agreement seems to be that both sides will curtail their post-Geneva attacks. The details have not been made public, but China will reportedly permit its rare earth export licensing system to start moving and the U.S. will ease its recent economic restrictions. Trump also indicated that the threats against Chinese students will be suspended. As I argued prior to the talks, though Trump’s aides often see anti-China measures as desirable in their own right, Trump sees them as leverage to be abandoned if they succeed in squeezing concessions from the other side.
Notably, the rare earth export licenses China plans to issue will have a limited validity of six months. This reflects two consequential lessons Beijing has taken from the last six months attempting to deal with Trump.
First, coercive measures are necessary. For months prior to “liberation day,” Beijing sought to open negotiations, suggesting a range of issues on which China could offer concessions and seeking to establish an interlocutor with a reliable line to Trump. Instead, Trump hit China with a 10 percent tariff increase in February and another 10 percent increase in March. Trump claimed the tariffs were punishment for inadequate Chinese efforts to suppress the shipment of chemicals used in manufacturing fentanyl.
Chinese leaders resented this rationale since they had already begun joint efforts with the Biden administration on fentanyl. Nonetheless, Beijing declined sharp retaliation. In both February and March, it instead offered new proposals meant to address Trump’s stated concerns on fentanyl and designed to get discussions going. The administration declined to respond to both proposals.
When Wang Yi — the top foreign policy official in both the Foreign Ministry and the Chinese Communist Party — was in New York to chair a U.N. Security Council meeting in mid-February, China sought a meeting with either Secretary of State Marco Rubio or then-national security adviser Mike Waltz. Washington refused, saying Wang is not powerful enough and demanding instead a meeting with Xi Jinping’s close aide Cai Qi.
With liberation day, Beijing abandoned this solicitous approach and instead retaliated with equivalent tariff increases as well as non-tariff measures like the rare earths export licensing system.
Trump was furious, posting: “CHINA PLAYED IT WRONG, THEY PANICKED - THE ONE THING THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO DO!” But as the trade war spun out of control, it was Trump who soon started looking nervous, insisting that Xi Jinping would be the one to call him to de-escalate the situation.
In the end, the two sides managed to convene the Geneva talks and step back from the abyss without ever revealing who had called whom first. But the lesson was clear: Trump finally agreed to talk only after China defied him and imposed some real pain.
The second lesson is more specific: Beijing’s ability to restrict the export of rare earth elements gives it tremendous leverage over Trump. The dogged insistence of Trump’s negotiators at Geneva that He Lifeng agree to loosen the restrictions and Trump’s own desperation as the restrictions started to bite unmistakably communicate the power China now wields.
Trump’s unresponsiveness to Beijing’s initial outreach and then his decision to launch into a confrontation without adequate preparation have thus left U.S. vulnerabilities exposed and seemingly place the U.S. at a disadvantage in future talks. But one unexpected outcome of this predicament might actually be productive discussions.
After all, China’s actions and statements indicate a persistent if frustrated desire to pursue an agreement to reduce tensions in the relationship. The stumbling block has been Trump’s mercurial impulses and destabilizing search for leverage over China. If China exercises its advantage with restraint — using it to keep the U.S. at the negotiating table rather than to exact concessions — it might finally find its way past those obstacles. Perhaps Trump’s own awareness of vulnerability will encourage him to allow serious talks to proceed. Confrontation is unlikely to satisfy his desire to exert strength, but wringing a good deal out of Beijing still could.
Yet underlying geopolitical tensions could fatally threaten such hopes. In particular, Trump’s Pentagon has been issuing foreboding indications of coming conflict. In recent weeks Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has made a number of overwrought statements hyping the idea that China could soon invade Taiwan. A leaked copy of the department’s Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance points to a strategy focusing U.S. military might against China. If Trump, perhaps seeking new sources of leverage or simply distracted with other matters, allows such a strategy to go forward, the delicate prospects of dealmaking will collapse into menacing acrimony.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: www.youtube.com/@aljazeeraenglish
Last night President Donald Trump acknowledged that his administration knew about the Israeli attacks on Iran. This morning on Truth Social he suggested that it was part of a plan to get Tehran to accept a nuclear deal and if they do not comply now, "it will only get worse."
"Certain Iranian hardliner’s spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse! There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE."
Israelcarried out air strikes against targets in Iran’s capital city, Tehran, in the early hours of Friday morning local time. As of 10 PM EST, reports were coming in that strikes had killed at least four top Iranian officials, along with commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Hossein Salami.
Two prominent nuclear scientists Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi and Fereydoun Abbasi were killed when Israel attacked their homes, according to Iran state television. Other civilians were killed in Tehran, according to the New York Times, but explosions were reported in other areas of the country, too, specifically locations housing Iran's nuclear facilities and military bases, including Natanz, Kermanshah, Isfahan, Arak and Tabriz.
The spokesman of Iran’s Armed Forces, Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi, said on state television that Israel and the United States will “recieve a forceful slap” and Iran’s Armed Forces would be retaliating with counterstrikes. “A retaliation attack is definite, God willingly," he said.
In a statement released by the White House shortly after the first reports of the attacks surfaced, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. was not involved in the attacks.
“Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran,” according to the statement. “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.”
Later, Fox News reported an exclusive interview with Trump following the strikes. From Fox's Jennifer Griffin: "President Trump was aware of the strikes beforehand. There were no surprises, but the US was NOT involved militarily and hopes Iran will return to the negotiating table (with Iran)"
Trump reportedly told Fox's Brett Baier, "Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb and we are hoping to get back to the negotiating table. We will see."
Trump is watching for any retaliation, and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is on high alert, Griffin said late Thursday. "He noted that the U.S. is ready to defend itself and Israel if Iran retaliates."
But by Friday morning the outlines of a more coordinated plan were coming into view, as Trump suggested on social media that he not only knew about the strikes but they were being used to coerce the Iranians into his preferred bargaining position in talks that until yesterday appeared to be going in a generally positive direction.
His chief Iran negotiator, Steve Witkoff, was scheduled to meet with Iran’s foreign minister on Sunday for a sixth round of talks on a possible deal that would curb Tehran’s nuclear program. The sticking point, of course, is whether Iran would be allowed to maintain its own civilian enrichment program. The Israelis and their hardline supporters in the U.S. have been adamant that their entire nuclear program should be destroyed.
Nevertheless, Trump has been saying all week — and the media has been reporting it — that he's been telling Israel to stand down on any planned attacks.
“I told [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] this would be inappropriate to do right now because we’re very close to a solution,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “Now, that could change at any moment. It could change with a phone call. But right now, I think they want to make a deal. And, if we can make a deal, (it would) save a lot of lives.”
The strikes also came only a day after the U.S. started evacuating its embassies in the Middle East and started allowing voluntary departures of military dependents from its bases and facilities there. At the time, no reason other than safety was given, though Trump ominously said Wednesday night that the Middle East "could be a dangerous place."
After his comments over the last several hours the question of whether the U.S. would intervene if and when Iran retaliates appears to be moot.
After the bombs started dropping, the preeminent pro-Israel lobby group in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAIC), called for Washington to support Israel's fight on X: “America must stand with our ally as it takes action to protect its families from the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.”
Others suggest this was all part of an elaborate plan to strike Iran from the very beginning. "President Trump’s deception campaign against Khamenei and the Islamic Republic will take its place as one of the most effective ever run by a political leader," declared Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a pro-Israel think tank based in the U.S.
Meanwhile, leading Democrats began coming out hard against the strikes before night's end, but before Trump's most recent comments. "Israel’s alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence," said Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-R.I.) who added "military aggression of this scale is never the answer."
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who sits on the foreign relations committee, said the attacks were "clearly designed to scuttle the Trump Administration's negotiations with Iran."
"A war between Israel and Iran may be good for Netanyahu’s domestic politics, but it will likely be disastrous for both the security of Israel, the United States, and the rest of the region. As Secretary Rubio stated, the United States was not involved in today's strikes, and we have no obligation to follow Israel into a war we did not ask for and will make us less safe."
Meanwhile, Republican hawks were already envisioning the need for an American military response. After saying "game on" when the reports of the first strikes were coming in, Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) said in a social media post that "People are wondering if Iran will attack American military personnel or interests throughout the region because of Israel’s attack on Iran’s leadership and nuclear facilities," he wrote.
"My answer is if they do, America should have an overwhelming response, destroying all of Iran’s oil refineries and oil infrastructure putting the ayatollah and his henchmen out of the oil business."
Referring to comments from Trump and other administration officials that Israel acted alone, Adam Weinstein, deputy director of the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute said, "Denying direct involvement in the attacks doesn’t change that Washington knew about them and this may be interpreted by Tehran was complicity which could put U.S. troops in the region at risk.”
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.