Steve Bannon Says It, War Is Coming

In partnership with

The news site that doesn’t cater to your beliefs. Or try to sell you theirs.

Instead, Ground News shows you how left, center, and right-leaning outlets are covering the same story—so you can easily compare reporting and get a well-rounded perspective on the issues that matter to you.

Join 1M+ readers from all political persuasions who use Ground News to see the news, the world, and themselves a little clearer.

Start your free trial today

It’s Saturday, and the world teeters on the brink of a conflict that promises to reshape global geopolitics. The drumbeats of war with Iran grow louder, fueled by a cadre of neoconservative voices who seem intent on dragging the United States into a quagmire that serves neither American interests nor the principles of an "America First" policy. Figures like Lindsey Graham and Mark Levin, staunch advocates for military intervention, have emerged as vocal proponents of this dangerous escalation, their rhetoric steeped in a misguided belief that such a war is both necessary and beneficial. Yet, amidst this cacophony of war hawkery, one voice stands out for its clarity and restraint: Steve Bannon, whose firm anti-war stance has positioned him as one of the most astute commentators on this issue.

The neoconservative push for war with Iran is not new, but it has gained renewed vigor in recent months. Senators like Lindsey Graham have openly called for regime change in Iran, advocating for a "forceful" approach that ignores the historical lessons of such interventions. Graham's enthusiasm for military action is emblematic of a broader trend among neoconservatives, who view conflict as a panacea for complex geopolitical challenges. This perspective is not only reckless but also divorced from the reality of America's national interest. The notion that the United States should expend its resources, both human and financial, in a war that offers little strategic benefit is a textbook example of hubris over prudence.

Mark Levin, another prominent figure in this narrative, has gone so far as to demand unconditional support for any military action, framing dissent as unpatriotic. His rhetoric, which insists that "you're either a patriotic American who's gonna get behind the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, or you're not," reveals a dangerous cult-like devotion to power rather than principle. This demand for blind allegiance is particularly alarming given the lack of a coherent strategy or exit plan for a potential conflict with Iran. The historical record is replete with examples of how such wars, fought without a clear objective or endgame, have led to prolonged instability and significant costs for the United States.

The argument that war with Iran is not in America's national interest is compelling on multiple fronts. Economically, the United States is already grappling with a national debt that has ballooned to unsustainable levels. Engaging in another costly military campaign would exacerbate this fiscal strain, diverting resources from domestic priorities such as infrastructure, healthcare, and education. Strategically, the Middle East remains a volatile region where American intervention has often backfired, creating power vacuums that are filled by adversarial actors. The instability that would likely follow a war with Iran could embolden groups like ISIS or lead to a broader regional conflict involving other major powers, such as Russia and China, further complicating the geopolitical landscape.

In this context, Steve Bannon's position is both refreshing and critical. Bannon, known for his populist and nationalist views, has consistently argued against military interventions that do not directly serve American interests. His recent statements, which caution against the "party" of war and highlight the ongoing nature of a "Third World War," reflect a deep understanding of the dangers of escalation. Bannon's critique is not merely rhetorical; it is grounded in a recognition of the historical patterns that have led to America's most costly foreign policy mistakes. His assertion that those who deny the existence of a third world war "absolutely do not understand the development and evolution of kinetic energy" underscores the gravity of the current situation and the need for a measured response. Bannon's stance is particularly noteworthy because it aligns with the America First doctrine that he has long championed. This doctrine prioritizes domestic stability and economic prosperity over foreign entanglements that drain resources and sow discord.

A war with Iran, driven by neoconservative impulses rather than strategic necessity, would be the antithesis of this principle. It would not only fail to secure American interests but also undermine the very foundation of national sovereignty and self-determination that Bannon and his supporters advocate. The contrast between Bannon's measured approach and the bellicose rhetoric of neoconservatives like Graham and Levin could not be starker. While the latter clamor for action without considering the consequences, Bannon calls for a reevaluation of priorities and a recognition of the limits of military power. His voice, though often marginalized in mainstream discourse, offers a crucial counterpoint to the war drums that threaten to drown out reason.

As the United States stands at this crossroads, the choice is clear: succumb to the siren call of neoconservative interventionism or heed the warnings of those who understand the true cost of war. The path forward must be guided by a sober assessment of national interest, not by the ideological fervor that has led to so many missteps in the past. In this critical moment, Steve Bannon's anti-war stance stands as a beacon of sanity, reminding us that the pursuit of peace is not only possible but imperative for the future of America.

Given Bannon’s dire warning, we’ll find out soon enough if his sources are correct. Let’s pray they’re not.