Sunday, March 08, 2026

‘How many American troops should die for this?’: veterans split on war with Iran

 



‘How many American troops should die for this?’: veterans split on war with Iran

For many veterans of post-9/11 wars, the strikes on Iran bring troubling echoes of the 2003 invasion of Iraq


Nearly two decades after his second tour, Nathan Wendland is still troubled by his experiences in Iraq.

Like 700,000 other Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the 46-year-old former US army staff sergeant receives compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder. Last January, Wendland checked himself into a psychiatric emergency room because he was worried he would kill himself. He was on the mend, but then Donald Trump ordered a sustained campaign of airstrikes on Iran. All those memories came flooding back.

“This war brings triggers into the news cycle every hour,” he said. “I cannot focus on my daily life.”

For Wendland and other veterans of the post-9/11 wars, the attack on Iran brings troubling echoes of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, another war of choice based on questionable claims of weapons of mass destruction that threatens to destabilize the entire region, with no clear endgame and a seemingly callous disregard for civilian casualties.


Nathan Wendland. Photograph: Courtesy of Nathan Wendland

Six US military service members have been killed by Iran’s retaliatory strikes. In Iran, US-Israeli airstrikes struck a girls school and left more than 100 children dead.

“We’ve put young men and women and support staff in bases all over the world at risk for no reason,” said Shawn VanDiver, a navy veteran and founder of #AfghanEvac, a coalition of 250 veterans, national security and human rights groups which helped rescue thousands of America’s Afghan allies after Kabul’s 2021 fall to the Taliban.

VanDiver said the irony was that many veterans voted for Trump specifically because he promised to keep the US out of wars. “Too many of our generation and friends died fighting these illegal wars that he said he wasn’t going to get us back into,” he said.

In Washington, lawmakers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been among the most outspoken in their rebuke of the administration.

“It’s a scary situation when you don’t hear what the plan is, what the victory is, when the president doesn’t lay out what the goals are. You don’t know what part you are in that mission, and what does that mean for your life,” said Senator Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat and marine corps veteran of the Iraq war whose unit sustained heavy casualties.

Gallego said the war was illegal, arguing there was “no imminent threat” permitting the Trump administration to circumvent congressional authorization.

Democratic representative Chris DeLuzio of Pennsylvania, a navy veteran of the Iraq war, said “every hawk cheerleading this war” should “answer a simple question: how many American troops should die for this?”

Veteran opinion is hardly unanimous, however, including in Congress.

Senator Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican and combat veteran of the Iraq war, backed the president, arguing the six American service members killed by Iran “gave their lives in support of a noble mission: protecting: protecting their fellow Americans and keeping our homeland secure”.

Trump won nearly two-thirds of the veteran vote in 2024, according to exit polls. Many, especially, older veterans, are sticking with the president, saying he took bold action to attack a regime determined to destroy the US.

“They chant ‘death to Israel’, ‘death to the United States’,” said Don Buhl, a 77-year-oldnavy veteran of the Vietnam war, who ministered for the Campus Crusade for Christ.

Buhl, who lives in Minden, Nevada (population 3,000), is a three-time Trump voter. “They say we’re the great Satan,” he said of the Iranian government. “You can’t negotiate with that.”

The American Legion, which boasts 1.6 million members in more than 12,000 posts across America, released a statement praising the presidentTrump. “The Iranian regime has been the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, kidnapping and murdering U.S. citizens and targeting U.S. military and allied personnel through proxies,” the statement said. “While there may be debate about the immediate justification for these actions, there is strong bipartisan agreement that the Iranian regime poses an enormous threat to the United States and our allies.”

But to Stephanie Keegan, the US military’s attack on Iran is both illegal and not worth the loss of American lives.. Her son, Sgt Daniel Keegan, deployed on two special operations tours in Kandahar, Afghanistan, with the 82nd Airborne Division and succumbed at home after developing an infection linked to his heroin addiction.

a man holding a cup
Daniel Keegan. Photograph: Courtesy of Stephanie Keegan

Keegan said her son, who was named seventh Special Group Soldier of the Year, would strongly oppose this war. “This would be an absolute abomination to him,” she said. “The rules and the constitution were not followed. The necessity has not been validated. He would have felt deceived.”

VanDiver said his immediate concern is for the safety of 1,100 of America’s Afghan allies at Camp Al Sayliyah, a former US military base in Qatar that is now run by the state department.

US patriot missiles are intercepting most Iranian attacks, he said, but the explosions send flaming balls of shrapnel falling from the sky, “flying into bedrooms where their children are sleeping. They are terrified.”

Residents of the camp, who are awaiting permission to come to the US, include 150 immediate family members of active duty military, VanDiver said.

Shrinking weapon stockpiles and regime-change uncertainty: doubts shadow US-Israel war on Iran



Shrinking weapon stockpiles and regime-change uncertainty: doubts shadow US-Israel war on Iran

Report indicates that US intelligence officials question effectiveness of strikes to produce regime change in Iran

US government reviews of the war in Iran show that the Trump administration may be ill-equipped for a regime-change war, according to reports.

The Washington Post reported on Saturday morning that a classified intelligence review found that the war in Iran is unlikely to oust the Iranian establishment, despite the Trump administration’s desire to continue its attacks.

At the same time, Democrats are warning that the airstrikes on Iran are diminishing US stockpiles of certain weapons, a point of concern that came up during a closed-door briefing earlier this week between Trump administration officials and members of Congress.

Despite ongoing negotiations, the US and Israel began bombing Iran last week, during a campaign that assassinated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian leaders. Iran has engaged in retaliatory strikes, targeting Israel, US installations in the region and several Middle Eastern countries hosting US bases.

Since the strikes began, the Trump administration has claimed that Iran has attempted to negotiate a ceasefire, despite multiple reports showing the contrary.

For years, Iran hawks in the US have pushed for a regime-change war, warning that Iran’s nuclear program has been close to producing a nuclear weapon. Since last April, Iran and the US have engaged in negotiations surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has repeatedly said that the nuclear program is purely for civilian purposes.

Israel and the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites last June, leading to a significant escalation of tensions between the countries. Negotiations continued, but, despite them, the US and Israel launched large-scale attacks on Iran this past week.

The US and Israel have now been bombarding Iran for a week, striking government buildings and military installations. They have also hit civilian buildings, hospitals and schools. On the first day of the bombing campaign, 168 young girls were killed in a direct strike on their school. The Associated Press later reported that the deadly strike likely came from the US.

Trump spoke on Saturday at the Shield of the Americas summit, a gathering of rightwing leaders in the western hemisphere in Florida, just hours after Iran’s president apologized to neighboring countries for missile strikes.

“We’re doing very well in Iran, you see the result,” Trump said. “And it’s been amazing. We’ve knocked out 42 navy ships, some of them very large, in three days. That was the end of the navy. We’ve knocked out the air force. We knocked out their communications and all telecommunications is gone.”

“They’re bad people, they’re just bad people,” he added. “Eight months ago, they would have had a nuclear weapon. And they’re crazy, and they would have used it, so we did the world a favor.”

However, US intelligence points to a different potential outcome, despite a prolonged and aggressive war.

As the Post reported, a classified report by the National Intelligence Council shows that a bombing campaign may not oust Iran’s military and clerical establishment. The report, completed in mid-February, outlined two potential actions by the US. In both cases, the outcome would remain the same: Iran’s government would follow protocols for a successor of the country’s supreme leader.

skip past newsletter promotion

After Khamenei was assassinated last week, the Iranian government quickly named an interim leadership council, made up of the Iranian president and other top officials. The council is in charge of choosing the country’s next supreme leader.

Intelligence officials said it was “unlikely” that Iran’s opposition would take control of the country.

With increasing worries around US stockpiles of weapons, some Democratic senators are concerned that, with the quick use of missiles and advanced weapons, other countries that rely on US military assistance, like Ukraine and others, may not be able to effectively protect themselves.

In an interview with Time Magazine, the Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal said he was “deeply concerned about Ukraine”, adding that US military “resources and supplies are limited, and I think we will be hard pressed, at some point, to tell Ukraine what is coming”.

Another expert who spoke with the AP said the concern was not about the conflict in Iran, but rather potential military escalations in the future.

“I’m not particularly worried about us actually running out during this conflict,” said Ryan Brobst, a scholar focused on US defense strategy at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, in an interview with the AP. “It’s about deterring China and Russia the day after this conflict is over.”

Weapons manufacturers have already agreed to increase their production. On Friday, Lockheed Martin said it agreed to “quadruple critical munitions production”.