The United States Army has been forced by Iran’s resolute resistance to procure outdated PAC-2 Patriot missiles for the first time in decades, as its vaunted air defense stockpiles were severely depleted during its war of aggression against Tehran.
Raytheon RTX received a $441.6 million contract modification on April 30 for the production of Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical (GEM-T) interceptors, essentially upgraded versions of the older PAC-2 series, to support what Washington called Operation Epic Fury, twz.com reported on Thursday.
The rush order, funded by special fiscal 2026 appropriations outside normal budgeting, demands completion by September 30 and marks the first domestic US purchase of these missiles in over 30 years. Work is underway solely at Raytheon’s Chambersburg, Pennsylvania facility, the only US production line for the system.
The move comes after American forces expended an estimated 1,060 to 1,430 Patriot interceptors between late February and early April 2026 in a desperate attempt to counter Iran’s precision missile and drone strikes.
What began as a reckless imperialist assault aimed at crippling Iran’s defensive capabilities quickly exposed the fragility of US and allied air defenses.
Iranian forces, employing a sophisticated mix of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and low-cost drones, overwhelmed the expensive Western systems, forcing repeated high-cost intercepts that drained inventories at an unsustainable rate.
PAC-2 GEM-T missiles rely on blast-fragmentation warheads designed primarily for tactical ballistic missiles and aircraft. They are widely acknowledged as less capable than the more advanced PAC-3 variants, which use hit-to-kill technology for greater precision against modern threats. Yet the US Army has no choice: production of newer interceptors cannot keep pace with consumption, and existing PAC-3 stocks have been further strained by transfers to the Kiev regime, the Zionist entity, and Gulf monarchies.
This desperation underscores the strategic failure of Washington’s aggression. Iran’s resilient missile industry and asymmetric capabilities turned the tables, compelling the Pentagon to scramble for whatever interceptors it can obtain, even decades-old designs that were phased out of primary US inventories long ago.
Analysts note that each PAC-2 costs significantly less than a PAC-3 but offers diminished performance, highlighting how Iran’s cost-effective saturation tactics rendered America’s multi-million-dollar defenses economically and operationally bankrupt.
The contract’s urgency, with full funding obligated immediately and a compressed five-month delivery window, reveals the depth of the crisis.
US officials have long touted the Patriot as the “gold standard” of air defense, yet the reality of confronting a determined and technologically sovereign nation like Iran has laid bare its limitations.
Stockpiles were already pressured by prolonged support for proxy conflicts, but the direct confrontation with Iran’s armed forces accelerated the depletion beyond recovery through standard channels.
As the Islamic Republic continues to strengthen its deterrent posture, this procurement serves as an admission of vulnerability.
The United States, despite its vast military-industrial complex, finds itself recycling outdated hardware while Iran demonstrates the superiority of indigenous innovation and national resolve. The war machine that sought to impose its will has instead been forced to dig into the past, a telling indicator that aggression against Iran carries unsustainable costs.
R. James “Jim” Woolsey, a major Iraq and GWOT promoter and neoconservative Democrat, passed away Tuesday at 84.
Woolsey served briefly as CIA director but rose to much greater prominence as a consistent promoter on television and in the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed pages of both the Iraq War and the broader Global War on Terror, which he sometimes referred to as “World War IV.”
Indeed, immediately after the 9/11 attacks, Woolsey was ubiquitous in arguing that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein not only was linked to al-Qaeda but may very well have approved or helped plan the plot himself.
After being forced out of his CIA director role by President Bill Clinton in 1994, Woolsey moved increasingly to the right, as noted in a generally respectful obituary published by the New York Times Wednesday, joining with the Washington-based Likudist neoconservatives led by the “Dark Prince” himself, Richard Perle of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Woolsey, an engaging if rather glib speaker who never seemed to run out of words, became a key part of what George Mason University anthropologist Janine Wedel identified as the “Neocon Core” in the years running up to and following the Iraq War and the GWOT. That included the promotion of confrontation with Syria and Iran as well as other states deemed hostile to Israel, and, hence, in their view, to the United States, as well.
That 11-member core, according to Wedel, included men who would hold key posts under President George W. Bush, among them Bush’s future deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz; his undersecretary of defense, Douglas Feith; his director for Near East policy on the National Security Council, Elliott Abrams; and Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
All of these men served on a variety of overlapping boards of major Washington-based organizations and think tanks that aligned themselves with Israel’s right-wing Likud Party. Together, these groups acted as a remarkably effective media echo chamber after 9/11 and in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, particularly in spreading mis- or disinformation about Saddam’s alleged development of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction programs and ties to al-Qaeda.
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.
Woolsey was involved in nearly all of the veritable galaxy of neoconservative front groups created to advocate for policies like invading Iraq. He held positions on the advisory and other boards of CSP, WINEP, and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He also served as the chair of the Leadership Council of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), which, for most of the past 20 years, effectively replaced AEI as the most prominent pro-Israel Washington think tank promoting war with Iran. Woolsey was also a co-founder of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI), an advocacy group closely tied to Israeli intelligence that has promoted comprehensive economic sanctions against Tehran since its founding in 2008.
Although Woolsey was not a signatory of PNAC’s 1997 charter, which was signed by a number of top Bush Jr. policymakers, including Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he did sign on to nine of the group’s open letters, including an April 2002 statement that called for the administration “to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power” and asserted that “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight.”
Woolsey also served as a member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, a civilian advisory body during the Bush administration initially chaired and organized by Perle. Just days after 9/11, Perle convened the Board and invited Ahmed Chalabi, head of the previously CIA-backed opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC) and a long-time Perle collaborator, to participate in its deliberations about Iraq as a possible target for U.S. military action and regime change. As a result of that meeting, Wolfowitz dispatched Woolsey — who, like Perle, had already declared on network television news that Hussein was likely to have been behind the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon — to gather evidence about Saddam’s alleged (but non-existent) ties to al-Qaeda and a previous 1993 bombing in the parking garage of the World Trade Center.
His mission — about which neither the State Department nor the CIA (which had several years before severed ties with Chalabi due to their assessment that he was completely unreliable) were informed — ended without acquiring the desired intelligence. Still, Woolsey, backed by the administration and the neoconservative network and echo chamber of which he had become an important part, continued to claim that Saddam and al-Qaeda worked together.
Chalabi’s INC nonetheless became the key source of disinformation about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction that was seized upon and promoted to the mass media by the Pentagon, the White House, and the neoconservative echo chamber, including Woolsey himself.
Jim Lobe is a Contributing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He formerly served as chief of the Washington bureau of Inter Press Service from 1980 to 1985 and again from 1989 to 2015.
The U.K. government recommended a risky drug combination for COVID-19 patients in 2020, just 16 days after warning doctors to use the medications together only as a last resort, medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., said this week.
For years, Campbell has criticized the widespread use of midazolam and morphine and other palliative drugs to treat COVID-19 patients, questioning why so many patients appeared to receive drugs commonly associated with end-of-life care — even though they didn’t necessarily have a terminal illness.
But in his latest video, he said he had overlooked a key piece of the puzzle: The U.K. government itself had backed guidance recommending the combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines for certain COVID-19 patients — just days after warning that the drug combination could cause fatal respiratory depression.
Campbell, who said a former member of the British Parliament brought the issue to his attention, called the apparent reversal “a national scandal which is being ignored.” … Full article
The United States benefits from oil supply disruptions caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Craig Murray, a Scottish political activist and former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, told Sputnik.
“The Americans are not unhappy with the disruption of oil supplies. They actually like the disruption of oil supplies because it benefits their own oil producers,” Murray said.
The blockade of the strait is not a big problem for the US, a net oil exporter, as the Americans do not get much oil from the Strait of Hormuz, the ex-diplomat said. It is a problem for China and India, which the US sees as competitors.
“So if they are damaged, that is good from the American perspective,” he added.
Murray compared the Hormuz blockade with the 2022 bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline, which carried Russian natural gas to Germany and on to other EU countries.
“It did huge damage to Germany and European economies, and the Americans were quite happy. For them, closing the Strait of Hormuz is like blowing up Nord Stream: it damages industrial competitors and energy-exporting competitors,” Murray said.
The US has renewed strikes against Iran since July 8, claiming they are in response to Iran interfering with commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. US President Donald Trump suggested on July 13 that the US could become a “guardian” of the strait in exchange for a 20% fee on cargo shipped through the waterway.
Iran’s foreign ministry has strongly condemned the British government’s decision to allow the US to use UK military bases and facilities to prepare and facilitate military strikes against Iran, declaring the move a violation of the UN Charter and international law.
“British policymakers, fully aware that US military strikes against Iran – which began with the participation of the Zionist regime and are still ongoing – constitute a clear act of aggression and a gross violation of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and peremptory norms of international law, have decided to join these actions,” the ministry said in a statement Thursday.
The decision, the ministry said, is “clearly contrary to the fundamental principles and rules of the Charter of the United Nations and international law” and, under paragraph (f) of Article 3 of UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 on the Definition of Aggression, “constitutes an act of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran”.
The foreign ministry sharply criticized Britain’s role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
“The UK government, both as a state and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, instead of fulfilling its legal and moral responsibilities to condemn the military aggression and war crimes of the United States and the Zionist regime against Iran, has stepped onto the path of aligning with the aggressors and has degraded its position to that of an accomplice in their war against the Iranian nation.”
“This decision,” the ministry added, “further undermines London’s claims about supporting the rule of law, human rights, and international peace and security.”
The statement drew explicit parallels with Britain’s long history of intervention in Iranian affairs.
It listed “the coup of August 19, 1953; full-scale support for Saddam Hussein’s regime during the imposed war; the imposition of illegal sanctions under the pretext of the nuclear issue; complicity with the United States in the so-called ‘snapback’ mechanism; and the designation of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC).”
“The Islamic Republic of Iran is determined to defend its national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interests, and national security against any aggression,” the ministry emphasized.
“Any party that in any way participates in the military aggression against Iran will be responsible for the consequences and repercussions of its own decision.”
According to a report from Bloomberg, the new British prime minister has agreed to allow the United States to use UK territory to continue its aggressive strikes against Iran.
The report said Andy Burnham has permitted the US to use British military bases for “defensive strikes” against Iran – meaning that UK bases such as RAF Fairford and the Diego Garcia naval base in the Indian Ocean will likely be used in the current round of US aggressive strikes.
The report added that former prime minister Keir Starmer, in his final hours at 10 Downing Street, chaired a government meeting on Britain’s policy following seven days of renewed US bombardment of Iran.
Sources revealed that ministers at the meeting decided to continue the existing policy of using UK bases to counter missiles from Iran and facilities used to target the Strait of Hormuz.
Burnham was briefed on the decision and appears to have agreed to it, despite the risk of angering anti-war Labour Party supporters, the report said.
Some Labour MPs, as well as members of the Green Party and Liberal Democrats, have argued that US use of the bases makes Britain complicit in war crimes.
American media outlets themselves are beginning to admit that the US is concealing its casualties in the current war of aggression against Iran. Although US officials insist that the number of American soldiers killed and wounded is minimal, there is strong evidence that the actual figures are far higher than what is officially reported. This suggests that Washington is facing serious difficulties in the conflict and is being forced to hide losses to prevent public outrage.
A recent article published by The New York Times revealed the existence of Pentagon guidelines to omit the true number of US casualties in the conflict with Iran. The article cites several sources familiar with the matter, showing how the figures officially released by the US government appear unrealistic. According to the newspaper, frequent Iranian attacks on US helicopters, fighter jets, and bases suggest a significantly higher number of casualties than the mere 17 confirmed by Washington so far.
It is not just The New York Times; other Western newspapers are also suggesting something similar. In an interview with CNN, an unidentified official stated that many wounded personnel are not included in official casualty lists – which are documented by the Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS), a US national database. The official noted that it sometimes takes days or even weeks for a wounded soldier to be officially reported as a casualty. During this period, injuries can worsen and soldiers may die, leading to further delays in listing the death in the database. All of this slows down the casualty counting process.
However, it is not just delays that prevent the truth about casualties from coming to light; there is a deliberate US strategy to block the sharing of information on the subject. Commenting on the matter, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell told reporters that revealing casualty figures in real time is analogous to providing data directly to the enemy – which is why the US withholds such data and will continue to do so.
Parnell maintains, however, that the data is merely withheld for a certain period before being released. He asserts that the US is not actually concealing the numbers but delaying their disclosure to prevent Iran from accessing the data in real-time – as this could potentially give the Persian country a military advantage in its strategic planning, allowing Tehran to assess which attacks were most effective and which targets should be struck in new operations.
Parnell also stated that simply sharing war data without “contextualizing” it is a way of spreading panic and distress among American citizens. According to him, figures must be selected carefully and released gradually to prevent the population from falling into unnecessary despair.
“Providing real-time information on non-fatal casualties to the media is the same as providing that information directly to our adversaries (…) [There are] baseless and malicious accusations of hiding injury numbers (…) Claims of concealment are fabrications meant to further distress the American people in the wake of three service members killed in action (…) Cherry-picking raw numbers without context paints a deliberately misleading and incomplete picture,” he said.
While Washington confirms only 17 deaths, Iranian authorities report at least 427 American casualties – including both dead and wounded. The discrepancy in the figures is vast and indicates that one side is lying. Although one might assume Iran is exaggerating its numbers to lower American morale, it is highly doubtful that only 17 Americans died, given the frequency and intensity of Iranian bombardments against military bases in the Persian Gulf and Jordan, as well as attacks on American ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
So, while the number of American casualties may be lower than 427, it is very clear that more than 17 Americans have already died in this war. The US is concealing the actual figures, and American officials merely attempt to justify their lies with rhetoric about “avoiding panic” and “not aiding the enemy.” But the real reason is simple: the Americans are desperate because they have realized that Iran’s military power is extremely efficient and capable of inflicting significant damage on US infrastructure in the Middle East. Revealing this would further increase the war’s unpopularity among American citizens, so authorities are doing whatever they can to hide the truth.
However, lying so blatantly will only further erode the American people’s trust in their own government. It seems obvious that more than 17 Americans have already died in this war. In a society with such easy access to information – where the monopoly of the official press is increasingly being challenged by the impact of social media – lying is never a safe option. Americans have the means to verify the figures for themselves, and they certainly will.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Eli Clifton and Ian Lustick Reveal How The Israel Lobby Paved The Way For A U.S. War On Iran
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | August 11, 2026
Investigative journalist Eli Clifton and political scientist Ian Lustick have released a detailed history of the Israel lobby’s influence on U.S. foreign policy titled “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power”.
The book contains a detailed history of the Israel lobby’s influence over various U.S. administrations going back to its creation.
Among the book’s most interesting revelations is how the Israel Lobby pushed anti-Iran propaganda in the United States in order to destroy U.S. diplomacy with Iran. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 