FIFA World Cup Match Schedule

For more than four decades, the United States has designated the Islamic Republic of Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. Over that time, Iran has conducted major terrorist attacks, attempted many more (including attempts using weapons of mass destruction), and steadily expanded its proxy network, as well as its broad toolkit of asymmetric capabilities to include: cyber operations, drones, and disinformation campaigns designed to threaten Western interests.

The February 28 attack on Iran may have degraded some of Iran’s capabilities while increasing incentives for retaliation against Western assets, potentially posing a direct threat to the Homeland. President Trump himself admitted that Americans should be worried about retaliatory attacks in the Homeland, with a disheartening “I guess”. This leadership and information gap leaves our frontline agencies guessing rather than guarding.

Given all the disparate tools that Iran and Iranian allies have developed, and their urgent interest in inflicting harm and sowing chaos through asymmetric warfare, the possibility of retaliation against the United States, including within the Homeland, cannot be dismissed. as evidenced by the recent unverified FBI report that Iran may be targeting California with drones.

How prepared is the United States to respond if our adversaries escalate beyond conventional attacks and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) weapons? The answer is troubling. The United States is less prepared for such an attack today than it was just a year ago.

In 2011, a decade after the 9/11 attacks, the White House issued Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness (PPD8) to strengthen the security and resilience of the U.S. through systemic preparation. PPD8 matured the emergency preparedness approach by breaking down pre-9/11 information silos beyond terrorism; expanding training, outreach, funding, and research; and significantly increasing cross-pollination between federal agencies and state and local law enforcement, public safety, and public health organizations. Today, this integrated system is being dismantled through a policy of institutional deconstruction and neglect.

Intelligence that is used to learn about potential attacks is not effectively reaching those who are most at risk. Reports that the White House stopped a National Threat Advisory System alert related to Iranian network threats demonstrate a critical failure of transparency. This builds on cuts to DHS Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), which began limiting state and local intelligence sharing last year. While I&A has never fully lived up to its vision, suppressing threat warnings and cutting cooperation does not reduce the threats or risks; it only blinds the public and first responders to dangers they need to anticipate.

Regarding the important task of preparing for a CBRN attack, the planning, preparation, and detection portion of that mission is being hollowed out. The DHS Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD) served as the single point of expertise within DHS for matters pertaining to WMD and led the development of counter-WMD and CBRN strategies and policies (in coordination with federal, state, and local partners). CWMD closely supported those state and local first responders on the front lines of CBRN response, developing a deep, sustained relationship with these partners through initiatives to identify radiological and nuclear threats in major cities (Securing the Cities) and to detect an aerosolized bioterrorism attack (BioWatch).

In the past year, due to DHS Secretary Noem’s requirement that all disbursements over $100,000 had to be reviewed by the DHS Front Office, the BioWatch disbursement of routine, Congressionally-appropriated funds to the BioWatch jurisdictions was suspended and delayed multiple times, impacting the federally-funded, locally managed program. Reportedly, several BioWatch jurisdictions are considering voluntarily withdrawing from the BioWatch program because they cannot rely on the funding to manage their own teams. This administrative snafu has made the U.S. more vulnerable. We will be less aware of aerosolized bioterrorism attacks, exactly at the time those attacks could become more likely.

Not content with just delaying or restricting funds, the Trump Administration recommended devolving CWMD, scattering its expert elements throughout the DHS enterprise. By decentralizing the CWMD expertise, funding, preparation, and training for these low-probability, high-impact threats will once again fall to the bottom of the priority list, continuing to distract and demoralize a workforce depleted from retirements and management-directed reassignments.

In the event of an attack, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the linchpin of emergency response. The FEMA Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) provides preparedness training programs (including CBRN) to the nation’s emergency response providers through grants and other federal funds. In the calendar year 2025, CDP was closed for several months due to DOGE, leading to a one-third drop in trained students. It is now closed again due to a DHS–FEMA funding gap. FEMA’s own fate is not certain, with the cancellation of the FEMA Review Council report on FEMA’s future, and inconsistent opinions within the Trump Administration and Congress on this issue.

These disruptions have created significant uncertainty for state and local officials in frontline emergency response. Their concerns are especially acute given the plethora of large public events scheduled in the United States in the near future, including the upcoming World Cup and the nation’s 250^th anniversary. State and local officials are always the first line of defense in any crisis, and they need to have the tools and capabilities to respond effectively.

DHS has always worked best when it works together with state and local partners. If Iran attacks the United States, it won’t be attacking the “Homeland,” it will be Boston, Detroit, Indianapolis, or a city near you. Those responding first will be from the state and local emergency response teams, which this administration has left to fend for themselves. Based on Presidential budgets, DOGE, and shifting Administration philosophy on FEMA, the entire architecture of the planning and prevention for a high-impact retaliatory attack is atrophying at the exact moment international volatility is ascending. To best protect the American public during this heightened risk environment, the administration must change course and equip state and local partners with the intelligence, detection capabilities, response training, and expertise necessary to defend against CBRN threats.

Mary Ellen Callahan served as a senior political appointee in the Department of Homeland Security for eight years, most recently as the Assistant Secretary for the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office from 2023-2025. In 2025, she was awarded the Order of the Dragon, Legionnaire Award by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps Regimental Association. She is a member of The Steady State

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

(Photo by Adam Hornyak on Unsplash)

Fog of war is an issue in every conflict, but when one or both sides ignore the Just War Theory, that fog is denser.

Much has been said and written about Epic Resolve, the US-Israeli aerial bombardment of Iran, focusing on its shifting goals, legality, and similar issues. On a more fundamental level, however, considering that there is still a possibility Donald Trump may order the deployment of American ground forces to Iran—an action likely to result in higher casualties on all sides—the morality of this operation should also be examined. At that point, it would be foolish not to call the operation what it truly is—a war.

While the actions thus far in Epic Resolve pale in comparison to our actions against Native Americans from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, the Administration’s actions are still called into question under the Just War Theory, which traces its roots back to classical Roman and biblical traditions. This theory addresses the right to go to war (jus ad bellum), the right conduct in war (jus in bello), and justice after war (jus post bellum). At its core, the Just War Theory rests on the fundamental premise that, while war is inherently destructive and should be avoided, there are circumstances in which conflict becomes not just permissible but morally necessary. As unpleasant as it is to contemplate, Epic Resolve appears to fall short in a number of the first two areas, jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

Legitimate authority. Only properly established authorities have the power to declare war. Although the US Congress has nearly relinquished its constitutional right to do so, the Constitution remains unchanged, leaving the question of the president’s legal authority to lead the country into war unresolved.

Right intention. The purpose of war must align with just cause, not conquest or economic gain. Regime change is conquest, pure and simple.

Probability of success. There must be a reasonable chance of achieving the war’s objectives. While the war’s goals vary depending on who is speaking, regime change has been the main focus, but no clear plan to accomplish it has been proposed. Additionally, actions by both the US and Israel—mainly Israel—through targeted killings of regime officials, make regime change nearly impossible without a large-scale, long-term deployment of ground forces.

Last resort. All non-violent options, such as diplomacy or sanctions, must be tried first. Although negotiations were not successful, they had not been ended, and even if the Iranians were stalling for time, considering the turbulent history between the US and Iran, and the lack of experienced experts during the three negotiation sessions, expecting progress was unreasonable. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Trump withdrew from during his first term, took nearly two years to finalize and involved nuclear experts. It’s very unlikely that inexperienced negotiators like Kushner and Witkoff could reach any agreement in the limited time they had.

Discrimination. Combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilians. While details are still sketchy, the destruction of a school, killing over 100 students, is questionable at best. Although targeting heads of state is not common, it is rare in modern conflict, and according to the US Department of Defense Law of War Manual (5.7.4), which, by the way, is no longer accessible on the DOD website, attacks on a national leadership of an enemy state have often been avoided to promote comity and ensure that authorities exist with whom peace agreements may be made. The targeted killing of Iran’s supreme leader and most of his high-ranking staff certainly complicates any future ceasefire or peace agreement. Additionally, traditionally, the only legal bases under the law of armed conflict for targeting national leaders are their possible combatant status or their direct participation in hostilities.

Trump’s insistence on Iran’s ‘unconditional surrender’ is another red line and a cause for concern.

Unconditional surrender is defined as capitulation without guarantees or negotiated terms. While a demand for unconditional surrender may act as a sufficient deterrent against aggressors or a diplomatic tool to induce a weak enemy to seek peace, it can also provoke a more protracted war, since it gives the opponent no incentive to surrender. Unconditional surrender leads to uncertainty, and uncertainty generates fear, which can provoke a harder and longer campaign than would otherwise be necessary to vanquish an opponent. In simpler terms, the demand for unconditional surrender, notwithstanding the superiority of American and Israeli airpower, will have to be enforced by boots on the ground, raising the specter of another Middle Eastern ‘forever war.’ During World War II, the Allies demanded unconditional surrender from Germany and Japan. A controversial approach, even at the time, it was justified on the grounds that Allied occupation would not violate the rights of enemy civilians, and it was aimed at preventing further conflict. It shouldn’t be lost on anyone, though, that it took two atomic bombs dropped on Japan to force its surrender, which itself was considered morally indefensible by many. Iran’s president, Masoud Pexeshkian, has already rejected the demand in blunt terms, further raising the specter of a prolonged quagmire.

In fairness, whether a demand for unconditional surrender contravenes just war theory depends on intent, implementation, and consequences. At this point, we don’t know the intent and can’t even guess the implementation or consequences. It remains, however, a concern.

Whether we talk about Epic Resolve or Wounded Knee, we are forced to admit that there have been periods in American history when the norms of what we could call civilized behavior were flagrantly ignored. The lesson is that when we normalize the flouting of norms, we undermine trust and sabotage opportunities to negotiate lasting peace. In the nineteenth century, a massacre of 150 innocents was a root cause of another ten years of war, and even though peace was finally restored on the Western frontier, it can be legitimately argued that trust between Native Americans and the US Government has not been restored over a century later. Iran, with a population of some 93 million people in an area one-sixth the size of the United States, or the combined area of the states of Texas, California, and Montana, will not be a cakewalk for US ground forces, whether they involve small special operations forces or larger conventional forces.

Before a decision is made to commit ground forces to Iran, we should have answers to the following questions:

The questions to ask before any such operation is launched would be:

1. What strategic national interests require a ground invasion of Iran?

2. What is the desired end state?

3. What are the projections in time, resources, and losses to achieve the desired end state?

4. Is the end state worth the cost?

If satisfactory answers can’t be obtained to these questions, ground operations should not even be considered. Instead, we should ask ourselves whether we’re risking history repeating itself in this region, with the potential for even more serious consequences than in the past.

Charles A. Ray served 20 years in the U.S. Army, including two tours in Vietnam. He retired as a senior US diplomat, serving 30 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, with assignments as ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Republic of Zimbabwe, and was the first American consul general in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He also served in senior positions with the Department of Defense and is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Declaration of Independence

Despite reference to the “creator,” this is arguably the most revolutionary secular sentence penned to parchment in the annals of humankind. The universality of the Framer’s prose has been embraced by throngs of peoples in disparate cultures for over two centuries. However, the aspirations manifest in this simple, yet enormously powerful sentence is tragically still unrealized for many American citizens. Thankfully, our understanding of the meaning of the first sentence, the remainder of the Declaration, and its offspring, the Constitution, has evolved, but only haltingly over more than two centuries. Unfortunately, the autocratic wannabee in the White House and his MAGA movement are intent on undermining that hard-won progress.

This evolution is critically important to understand because it points us toward a better future that is less aspirational and more actual. Let’s focus on on merely two words in this sentence: men and equal: Although there were several in the Continental Congress, who despised the very idea of slavery, they ultimately made a pact with the devil. The issue of Black bondage was placed on-the-backburner in the interests of the future establishment of the world’s first constitutional democracy. By some estimates, the price of freedom from British oppression for the 13 colonies was the continued enslavement of nearly 150,000 persons. That number eventually swelled to as many as 4,000,000 in the following 87 years — until President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. The word men, then, clearly did not encompass those persons condemned to a cradle-to-grave miserable existence as property. Often forgotten history, five thousand black men fought in George Washington’s army. The terrible irony is all too apparent.

Although finally corrected in the modern era, individual Black slaves were enshrined into the US Constitution as 3/5ths of a white man by the Electoral College. The often-repeated right-wing position that the Electoral College had nothing to do with slavery is ridiculous on its face. Despite its clearly racist leanings, the system did have the notable distinction of being the first in recorded human history to elect a national leader via a democratic process. The Civil War’s arguable aim to “set men free” cost as many as 750,000 lives on both sides. Of those, 179,000 Black men wore Union blue, and 40,000 of that number died. Tragically, the conflict that was meant to bring freedom to those that most needed it, ultimately failed to deliver on its promise. The southern states eventually developed the outrageous “Jim Crow” laws that promulgated the heinous notion of “separate but equal.” The midnight lynching activities of the KKK were eventually burned into the national consciousness.

Blacks were no longer slaves, but they were clearly not equal under the law either. Poll taxes and voter-ID laws all had the effect of suppressing the black vote. Slavery may have been outlawed, but obvious systemic racism was subsequently codified in jurisprudence. This clearly evolutionary change from slavery to second class citizen status was dreadful, falling far short of the stated objective of equal. The long-time-in-coming 1964 Civil Rights Act corrected twisted law, making it illegal to discriminate against anyone because of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” thus, ending the odious policy of segregation. That act is in many ways the crowning achievement of the American Civil Rights Movement that was led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This was yet another milestone in the evolution toward making the word equal mean what it says. The election of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 raised another marker on the arduous road to becoming equal.

Several years ago, I taught U.S. History to undergraduate college students. They often concluded that the Founders were men of their times: that they were flawed, as we all are. Clearly, a significant number of these men’s understanding of equal in 1776 did not include those people then enslaved. Thankfully, our society has matured in the right direction. Despite these failings, the aspirational words of both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution have stood the test of time and now rightly and legally include all peoples regardless of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Are we there yet? Not hardly, and Mr. Trump seems to deny the historical record. Under this president, some of America’s most senior military officers have been fired because they were black. Under this president, initiatives to level the career playing field within government for Blacks have been eliminated. Under this president, there were mass (forced?) resignations from the Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice. Under this president, AI generated photos of former chief executives are portrayed with their wives as apes on his personal social media site. It appears that under this president, we are to pretend that racism and discrimination are myths. The slide towards authoritarianism is ongoing. The scapegoating of minorities… the dismantling of checks and balances… the centralization of power… the suppression of dissent … and the rigging of elections are all key indicators.

The great orator, abolitionist, and author, Frederick Douglass, perceived the Constitution as “a glorious liberty document.” Tragically, it is a wonderful aspiration that has yet to come to fruition. Under this president, America is backsliding into a fantasy world where Whites are a disadvantaged majority, an absurd construct unsupported by history.

Robert Bruce Adolph , a qualified Military Strategist, is a retired senior US Army Special Forces soldier. He holds graduate degrees in both National Security Studies & International Affairs and was formally trained as a counterintelligence special agent. Robert also taught university level courses in American Government, US History, and World Politics. Following his retirement from the active military, he joined the UN, subsequently seeing service in Sierra Leone, Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Indonesia and more, culminating in the role of Chief of the Middle East and North Africa at UN Headquarters in New York. He is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Defense Secretary Hegseth’s introductory letter to the National Defense Strategy (NDS) dismisses all past administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, for pursuing what he calls, but does not define, “cloud castle thinking” by supporting the “rules-based international order.” This is a shallow, ideologically driven misreading. The rules-based international order is not a fantasy; it is a practical asset to the US military. It reduces threats by limiting certain forms of military rivalry, regularizes interaction among the world’s armed forces, establishes standards to avoid accidents and unintended escalation, and provides a legal framework for managing ambiguous disputes. Notably, the NDS’s main text does not echo Hegseth’s dismissal, perhaps reflecting wiser thinking within DoD.

What the Rules-Based International Order Actually Is

Hegseth never defines what he means by the terms he derides. A working definition of the rules-based international order could be: a web of formal and informal laws, rules, agreements, procedures, and norms that regularize relations among nearly 200 countries and the multilateral institutions that manage those relationships in an increasingly interconnected world. While this order is heavily focused on non-military matters, it has critical elements that directly address the security challenges the US military faces every day.

Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Arms control has been a central feature of the rules based international order since WWII as the world wrestled with how to manage the unparalleled destructive power of modern weapons. For 80 years, the US has pursued arms control, especially involving nuclear weapons, to limit the threats facing America and its allies. Without the negotiated agreements, the US military confronts a larger, more capable adversary threat environment. Some of these agreements are largely bilateral between the US and Soviet Union/Russia, while others were multilateral, directly impacting US allies. Regardless, they are embedded in a widely accepted international system of formal/informal rules and norms.

The multilateral Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone of US efforts to limit the number of nuclear-armed states. It also affects civil nuclear trade affecting US industry, and, along with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is essential to countering emerging threats like Iran. Any future US-Iran monitoring will be built on the NPT framework and require IAEA involvement.

There is also a critical linkage at work: other countries forego nuclear ambitions in part based on great-power commitments to limit their own arsenals. Beyond the NPT, agreements restricting chemical and biological weapons, missile development, and arms transfers, all embedded as a part of the rules-based international order, further reduce the threat environment the US military must navigate.

Worldwide Military Interactions

US military power depends on a large global presence; permanently based forces, training and exercises, security assistance, arms sales, ship visits, aircraft transits, and combat operations. All of this is underpinned by a set of international laws, rules, and norms that allow the US to operate routinely. This is the mundane but essential day-to-day business of the US military; something Hegseth, given his lack of experience, does not appreciate. While there always will be a bilateral dimension, these relationships are based upon a widely endorsed foundation within the “international rules-based order”. Many of these arrangements are also tied to multilateral institutions, including within the UN system.

Avoiding Accidents and Unintended Escalation

Given the global scope of US military operations, accidents and incidents with potentially hostile states are inevitable. Preventing escalation through established rules is therefore essential. The US-Soviet “Incidents at Sea” (INCSEA) agreement, established in the early 1970s, is a model: it allowed the US to conduct critical missions while managing the risk of escalation. The US has sought a comparable arrangement with China, with limited success, highlighting the importance of these types of agreements.

Hotlines and crisis communication centers, including the US-Soviet/Russian hotline and Nuclear Risk Reduction Center, represent another layer of this architecture. These efforts have spawned a web of broadly similar arrangements among a variety of countries. For example, the US facilitated a hotline between the Indian and Pakistani militaries, which has proven essential in de-escalating multiple potential nuclear crises. All of these arrangements rest on a broader foundation of globally shared norms, the very order Hegseth dismisses.

Ambiguous Areas of Dispute

US naval and air forces are indispensable to American military power, but their ability to operate globally depends on more than technological superiority. It depends on the internationally agreed array of maritime and aviation laws, rules, and procedures governing use of the seas and airspace. Without this foundation the US military would be more dependent on sheer force and pressure to operate globally adding diplomatic hurdles and increasing operational challenges and risks..

Nowhere is this more consequential than in the South China Sea (SCS) and East China Sea (ECS), where the US has backed regional allies in resisting Chinese territorial aggression. Part of China’s strategy has been to redefine the relevant laws and norms to justify its actions. Hegseth’s contempt for the rules-based order plays directly into Beijing’s hands and directly undermines the NDS’s own stated focus on defending the First Island Chain against China. He is working against his own strategy.

More troubling still are the administration’s so-called counter-drug interdiction operations in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, which rest on a dubious legal foundation at best. Chinese strategists and lawyers are almost certainly monitoring these actions for ways to exploit them in their own legal and public diplomacy campaigns in the SCS and ECS.

The US Military Benefits from the International Rules-Based Order

Hegseth and those who share his worldview want American military power unconstrained, used purely to compel acceptance of US policies. But the rules-based international order does not constrain US military capability; it enhances it. Every administration for the past 80 years, Republican and Democratic, has understood this. Abandoning that foundation does not make America stronger. It makes the task of the US military harder, the threat environment more dangerous, and the risks of escalation higher, while handing strategic advantage to adversaries, above all China, who are watching carefully and taking notes.

Harry Hannah retired after four decades of experience in the Intelligence Community. He retired from the CIA in 2018. About half that time was focused on analyzing the capability of multiple foreign militaries in direct support of US military planning and operations and national level decision making. He is a member of The Steady State.

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the US Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.