The Duran Podcast - Unconstitutional Military Merger Nobody in Congress Will Debate w/ Dennis Kucinich

Episode Date: July 4, 2026

Unconstitutional Military Merger Nobody in Congress Will Debate w/ Dennis Kucinich

All right, Alexander, we are joined once again by the excellent Dennis Kucinich on the Duran. Mr. Kucinich, thank you for joining us, and people can follow your work. The best place where they can follow your work is on your substack where you post amazing articles. Is that correct? That's correct. And thank you for mentioning substack. Thank you. All right.

I have that substack as a link in the description box down below. And I will also add it as a pinned comment as well. So Alexander, Mr. Kucinich, let's discuss what is happening in reference to a recent substack post from Mr. Kucinich. Alexander, pass it off to you. Indeed. Indeed. And can I just say, it is always a great pleasure and honor for me to be speaking with Dennis Kucinich, especially at these very difficult and fought times. Dennis has been a voice of reason and sanity and great courage, by the way, moral courage in the United States, in Congress, in politics, in life generally in the United States for decades.

And I remember, as I said just before we started this program, reading and hearing all about him and admiring him from a distance all those years ago. And his voice has stayed true throughout all of that time, strong and true, all of that time, and it continues to be so now. So, Mr. Kucinich, you've written many fine pieces of many, you know, throughout your time and politics and since. You've just written a piece on your substack site about war crimes. And I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit about it. Yes, and again, thank you to Alexander and Alex for being under Duran.

I've written a series of pieces on substact that reflect upon a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2027, which is before Congress right now. There is a provision in it in Section 219 that merges top-level operations of the U.S. and the Israeli military. This is unprecedented. It is, frankly, in my view, unconstitutional. It puts us in a position where we are going to be in wars forever, and why do I say that? You have to remember that even recently, it's no secret that Benjamin Netanyahu pushed Donald Trump into attacking Iran. and that's just one part of the Zionist ambitions to gain more and more territory. And those territories include Turkey, they include Egypt, as well as the areas that are now being occupied or are being aggressed again.

And so if we were to bring Israel inside of our defense establishment, considering the influence that they already have on the outside, and create a formal structure where we eliminate duplication. That's what they're talking about in this proposal, where there's an integration on a vast-ringed operations. Then what you have is, instead of Israel getting $4 billion a year from the U.S. for military purposes, they will then have access to $1.5 trillion annually in the U.S. military. expenditures. So there are so many things wrong with this proposal. And here we are in the United

States celebrating the 250 years of our independence from Great Britain. And we are about to jump into a circumstance with Israel where we're actually going to be forfeiting our independent decision making. I don't think anybody in the United States perhaps grasps, and apart from yourself, Mr. Kucinich, how absolutely unprecedented in American history this is. Of course, I am British, and I'm very familiar with the relationship between Britain and the United States during the Second World War.

The relationship then was a very, very strong one, but the British military and the American military fought alongside each other. There was never any question of the kind of integration between the two militaries that we're talking about here. Had it been proposed, which it actually was, by the way,

by people around Churchill, Churchill was rather keen on that. Had it ever been proposed, well, had it been seriously proposed, in the United States, it would have been rejected outright. And if you know the story, the history of our relations,

between ourselves during the Second World War, in a war of existential importance when we were both defending ourselves against a powerful adversary with unlimited ambitions. Well, people in the United States would have said this is completely unacceptable. It violates all conceptions of American independence of the Constitution, as you said,

in exactly the way that you said. I would never have believed that a country like the United States would ever do a thing like this. Just Michael. Well, you know, the parallel that you just drew is very instructive. Because, you know, even with the current administration, many of us in America understand that there is a special relationship with Great Britain. But even with that kind of relationship, even under existential conditions, as you have recited, we would not have permitted a merger of British and U.S. or integration of British and U.S. military.

Now, consider that if we wouldn't do that with our historic best friend, we shouldn't do with anyone. And the thing to keep in mind is that one of the reasons why I believe this is illegal is that this essentially is the form of a treaty. You know, you have the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which, you know, I'm not really keen on, but that was a treaty. This would have to be a treaty that would be subject to Senate debate and approval. There's no treaty. He was they just slipped it in as a provision in a large, you know, almost a thousand page bill. and zero debate, zero. Matter of fact, they cut off debate by not including an amendment that would have struck this provision from the bill in the Rules Committee of Congress.

And they did that silently, silently, quietly. So there was no debate in the committee, and there was no debate, of course, on the floor of the House. Now, legislation is held up for the moment. But this is a, it's not just that it's unprecedented. We have a right, if there was a debate, to say, what about this particular partnership? For those who say, well, we want to do it. Israel's leaders whose national security ministry is in the United States at this time, they either have arrest warrants out for them at the ICC for war crimes, or the arrest warrants are in price.

What in the world are we doing? Bringing somebody right inside of our sacred house who has murdered maybe a hundred thousand Gossians who have a military practice of shooting children in the head and the Chet who have just dropped in southern Lebanon perhaps one of the biggest bombs that's ever been dropped in peacetime on innocent people who have made an art of a chamber of horrors of killing. And so are these our values? Is this what we stand for?

Is this what we're to become? Now the United States' hands haven't been cleaned to be sure in many conflicts in the 20th and 21st century, but to bring Israel's government into the military and military-making decisions of the United States creates nightmares that we will have even conjuring. That is absolutely correct. I mean, what we would have in effect is a situation where the United States is not only integrated into Israel's foreign policy and defensive objectives in the Middle East, which look increasingly unlimited.

And by the way, increasingly utopian and fantastical. I mean, you mentioned wars against Turkey, wars against Egypt, wars against all over the place, all the time, everywhere. But we have also a situation with Israel where they have been conducted. war in an increasingly ruthless way, in a way which if this happens, is going to implicate the United States in this ruthlessness in ways that it might no longer have any mechanism to control, because if you merge militaries in this kind of fashion, you dilute your decision-making capabilities. Do you want to comment on that?

You're right about that. And let's look at where we are right now at this moment. We cannot come to an agreement with Iran on ending the conflict there. Why is that? Because Israel is doing everything it can to make it impossible for the objective that Iran has to stop the strikes on Lebanon. That's what they're doing. We want to see that ended. They don't.

They want more room. in southern Lebanon. They want the Latani River to be the demarcation. They're moving into the northern part of Lebanon. The bombing has been extensive. Our partners? Really? That war in Iran should have never been started. February 28th, the attack that occurred, that killed the Iranian leader, as well as 168 schoolchildren, remained. a blot on our country, but it was done at the behest of Israel with this idea that somehow the Iranian government is going to collapse and Israel would have some kind of access to control events in Iran.

You use the word fantastical. That's right. It's a kind of thinking that reflects a megalomaniacal impulse that is a dis, that is a that is advanced by murderous instincts. And I'm very concerned for my country. First of all, I'm an American. That's number one. I might see myself as a citizen of the world,

but I'm an American. And America's interests are in no way served whatsoever by bringing Israel into a peerless decision-making position in the now, Department of the Department Department of War, because that's what they're about right now. They're about total and all-out war. And so keep in mind something, Alexander, that the U.S. is right now considering that $1.5 trillion annual war budget, we'll call it.

And that represents a 67% increase over the previous year, which was roughly $900 billion. So here we have a much larger military, much larger capabilities, much larger expenditures for weapons, bombs of all sorts. And Israel comes in the tent to help correct our policy. no way, no way. There's another aspect to this, which is the way in which it undermines what I would call democracy. What I would definitely say is democracy.

I mean, you've already explained that it's happening without debate, that it's a treaty, which is not being ratified as a treaty by the Senate in the way that the Constitution requires. It's also something that is being done against what one's senses is very much the flow of opinion in the United States today. Young people, but not just young people, many, many people across the United States have, as we know,

over the last three years, become increasingly critical of Israeli foreign policy and have been speaking out against it. We've had all sorts of people oppose it. And yet something is being done. which seems to be diametrically contrary to that sentiment, because it commits the United States ultimately to facilitating these Israeli projects. And of course, last but not least, the decisions that are being made, which are war decisions, and you talked about the enormous increase in the budget, the military budget, and the commitment, ultimate commitment that this will bring, to further involvement in the Middle East,

it seems to fly completely in the face of what most Americans seem to want, which is a withdrawal, or at least some kind of reduction of the American presence in the Middle East. After all, Donald Trump said and campaigned and was elected, as he said, as the president of peace. Now, this, it seems to be,

works so far against all of that, that ultimately, what has to say that if you do something so completely contrary to the American Constitution, the law, and the sentiment of the American people, then you cannot argue that this is anything other than an anti-democratic measure. You're absolutely right. It's not only lacking in constitutional authority, it's lacking in accountability. As you stated, there's Alexander. There's a question of democratic accountability here. Who voted for this? The American people right now have by and large rejected what Israel is doing. And people are becoming increasingly horrified when they see the images that are coming out of Gaza and the West Bank and South Lebanon and Syria and what happened in Yemen. And, you know, what happened in Yemen.

And is this our future? It must not be. And let's look at some recent congressional elections, primaries, in the United States. Israel and the U.S. policies with Israel played a substantial role in the defeat of some very well-known incumbents who themselves were seen as progressive. But that one issue caused people to say, nope, you know, you've taken. money from APAC, you've taken money from other Israel interests, we reject that. And we want to cut this kind of close cooperation, which puts us into forever wars. So you're right. The American people are beginning to strongly reject this association. And part of its generational, younger people in the U.S.

who are seeing their job opportunities in the future challenged by AI, who are having difficulty being able to pay rent, or certainly the dream of owning a home becomes out of reach, who are paying off educational loans, who are finding it difficult just to be able to survive economically. They look at the government's commitment to more war, and they say, what in the world are we doing? And that commitment comes at this moment in large matter as a result of our relationship with Israel. And our participation with them, which has already put U.S. authorities in danger of being charged in the ICC as well. I'd like to turn to something else, which is something that you have been very involved in in the past, and which, by the way, I believe, again, puts you fully in line with the sentiments of the American people.

You mentioned earlier in the program that the United States does not have an entirely clean man's in relation to what it's done in many places in the world, in many wars around the world. The reality is, the other thing I would say about that is that to my memory and knowledge, whenever that has become publicly known and discussed in the United States, whenever there have been horrors committed in any war, in any conflict, there is amongst the American people a deep revulsion. And there is a demand that this stop. and it has an effect. I've seen it, have an effect.

It had an effect in Iraq. It had an effect previously in Afghanistan. It had an effect in other places. Now, if we have an arrangement like this with a military and a government, which has become increasingly ruthless, and which has behaved in a way that has... engendered a very dangerous ruthlessness within its own society. If you listened and follow the kind of political debate that you see in Israel, you can see this.

Then, when you're going to commit the United States into a partnership which will lead the United States into things, war crimes, which the American people would reject and would strongly reject. and which are completely contrary to the sentiments in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, all of the founding documents of the United States that I know. What are your thoughts there? As you're speaking, I know that the people of the United States, by and large, don't want war. they don't want to be the agency of other people suffering. They are revolved at the violence that is committed in the name of the United States.

It's becoming a greater element in our politics, which I predict will continue to have an effect in the 2026 elections, but 2028 will see a moment of reckoning about the, policies. However, the lack of general lack of awareness about bringing Israel inside the military decision-making matters to make them co-equal, to make them to create a merger, to talk about integration, to talk about eliminating duplications, puts us in a position where there'll be an acceleration of the murderous activities of Israel, because once they're inside, there's zero restraint. Here's something that, for your thoughts, Alexander. Let's go back through history. When wars are fought and one military conquers another military, that country comes under the control of the conquering nation in some way, shape, or form four years. But what happens

when one military finds a way to get inside of another military and be able to make decisions that affect two countries, how much more dangerous is that? It's, without a sure, shot, I might add, between the two parties. They just insert themselves and are in a position to be able to usurp the sovereignty of the United States of America, to be able to undercut our independent decision-making, and to be able to use our strategic resources, our tax dollars for their own narrow purposes, which are simply about ethnic cleansing, genocide in the service of territorial expansion. So, you know, I don't think any Americans signed up for that. and I predict that if this thing passes, you will find consequences for everybody who's out there supporting it.

I mean, there's just another thing I wanted to say. I mean, the point about duplication seems to me to be completely wrong. Actually, it makes little sense. I mean, it takes a purely functional approach to military matters. Whereas, of course, when you're talking about military matters, you're talking about questions of war and peace. It's not duplication. It's dialogue between allies. And the fact that the allies might have different views, it seems to me, is a good thing, not a bad thing.

What is called duplication is, in effect, an attempt to set up a unitary command where there should not be. It takes away responsibility. It means that command, the ability to hold command responsible and under proper civilian control, American civilian control, if we're talking about the United States, is lost. I find it very strange, by the way, that people in Congress don't see this. I would have thought that given that there are quite a few people in Congress, I understand, who have worn the uniform, they would understand this. Well, you have put your finger on something that I don't think anybody else has brought forward yet.

And that is the fact that if you, quote, eliminate duplication, unquote, you have a unitary command. the Constitution of the United States, and that is Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, it deals with the executive, makes the President, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. People who join the armed forces have to take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. if we bring in a foreign country, in this case Israel, into our military command, number one, they will not be under the president of the United States. Number two, they don't have an oath to the United States of America. They have no commitment whatsoever to the United States of America. They'll be in a position to simply use the assets of the U.S. in furtherance of their own ambitions. I mean, it is so easy to see that. It is You know, I find it astonishing that members of Congress don't understand that. But, you know, hey, what's a constitution among friends, right? America is, its constitution is its birth document.

I mean, the constitution of the United States is not merely an extraordinary. And I would say, wonderful document in itself. but it is the foundation upon which America is built, more so than any other country. I mean, if we're talking about, say, France, France has had many constitutions in its time, and it's had a very long history. But the United States is the United States, because it is named that in the opening words of the Constitution of the United States. we, the people of the United States. So, I would say that the Constitution is just a matter between friends, which I'm sure some people are saying, well, that seems to me to misunderstand completely what America is.

So that's the first thing. The other thing I wanted to say, because I just wanted your final thoughts on this. Militarization, because Israel has become a very militarized society now. The United States has not been a militarized society for most of its history, but it is increasingly becoming so. Can you say something about that and about the enormous damage that is doing, both to America and to the life of the American people and to the economy as well? Big question, but just a few words about it from you, Dennis Kucinich. Militarization is not simply the size of an army. militarization is what percentage of your budget goes towards the military. And today, well over 50% of the discretionary spending in the United States goes for the newly named Department of War. What does that do? It crowds out health care, education, retirement security. It crowds out a range of legitimate services that people pay for with their taxes. So do we have a

militarization of the budget? Yes, and I will tell you that precedes a militarization of thought, word, and deed. But I still believe that the American people want peace. They want to end these forever wars. And if given a chance to have their representative vote, they'd want to represent the vote against this merger of the U.S. and Israeli military. Well, I'm going to just suggest this to all Americans who are listening to this program. Listen to Dennis Kucinich's wise words. Write to your congressman. Write to your senator.

Speak to everybody that you can. Tell them about what he has just said. Organize and argue against this terrible bill. Dennis Kucinich, thank you very much for coming on our programs. If there's anything further you wish to say, please do. But for me, thank you is what I want to say. Well, I do want to say this, that your understanding of America, its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution is lyrical.

It touches my heart as an American. And I think that we need to know that all over the world, that there are people whose love for America, depends on our adherence to the highest principles that are set forth in that, not just the declaration, but the Constitution of the United States. So thank you very much. It's a privilege and an honor again to join you on the Duran. Thank you, Dennis Kucinich, a privilege and an honor for us to have you.