ScheerPost
In recent interviews on Clearing the FOG, Margaret Flowers highlights a sharp rise in military personnel seeking conscientious objector status, speaking with Mike Prysner of the Center on Conscience and War and revisiting an earlier conversation with James Branum of the Military Law Task Force on legal alternatives available to active-duty troops. The interviews point to growing concern inside the ranks as the Trump administration deepens confrontation with Iran and expands military deployments across the region.
As the Trump administration deepens U.S. military involvement in the expanding war around Iran—with troop deployments growing, Marine Expeditionary Units moving toward the region, and military families bracing for escalation—another story is unfolding inside the ranks: more service members are actively searching for ways not to participate.
In this episode Prysner who says requests for conscientious objector assistance have surged dramatically since the latest attacks began. According to Prysner, many of those reaching out are not motivated by fear for their own safety, but by refusal to be tied to another war they view as unlawful, catastrophic, and morally indefensible.
The conversation also revisits legal guidance from James Branum of the National Lawyers Guild’s Military Law Task Force, who outlines what active-duty troops can legally do when confronted with potentially unlawful orders, including the right to question commands, seek counsel, and in some cases refuse participation.
Taken together, the interviews reveal something often hidden beneath official war messaging: beneath patriotic rhetoric and televised escalation, dissent is growing within the military itself. For soldiers, sailors, Marines, and their families, the question is no longer abstract—whether this conflict expands further may determine whether conscience becomes a battlefield of its own.
At the center of the interviews is a striking reality rarely acknowledged in official coverage: the resistance is not hypothetical. Prysner says the Center on Conscience and War has seen a more than thousand-percent increase in military personnel seeking information about conscientious objector status since the war expanded, with inquiries coming from across branches and ranks—including combat units, intelligence personnel, officers, reservists and active-duty troops already positioned near the conflict zone. Many, he notes, describe the killing of civilians, bombed hospitals, and the prospect of participating in another open-ended regional war as the breaking point that forced them to confront what military service now demands of them. Branum adds that troops ordered into volatile deployments face serious legal and moral dilemmas, especially when commands intersect with actions many believe may violate both constitutional protections and international law. Together, the interviews expose a deep fracture beneath Washington’s war posture: while political leaders speak in the language of deterrence and force, growing numbers inside the military are quietly asking how far obedience can go before conscience refuses to follow.
What emerges from both conversations is a picture of an administration escalating militarily while confronting uncertainty not only abroad, but within the very institution expected to carry out its orders. As troop movements continue and naval assets expand across the region, Prysner warns that many service members are already discussing refusal, discharge options, and legal avenues long before receiving direct deployment orders—an early sign that this conflict may generate internal resistance faster than previous wars. Branum, meanwhile, underscores that military law still recognizes limits: orders are not automatically lawful simply because they are given, and service members retain rights even inside a rigid command structure. That tension—between command authority and personal conscience—has historically surfaced only after wars become prolonged disasters. In this case, it is appearing at the opening stage, suggesting that memories of Iraq War and War in Afghanistan remain close enough that many inside uniform no longer accept official justifications at face value.
If history offers any lesson, it is that wars begin to unravel politically when dissent crosses the line between civilian protest and internal refusal. The significance of what Prysner and Branum describe is not simply that individual troops are questioning orders, but that a wider moral fracture is becoming visible between official war policy and those expected to enforce it. From legal hotlines to conscientious objector filings, from families contacting advocacy groups to veterans publicly warning against another catastrophic escalation, the infrastructure of refusal is already taking shape before this conflict has fully matured. For the antiwar movement, that matters profoundly: public opposition gains force when it is echoed by those in uniform who understand firsthand what escalation means—not in speeches, but in bodies, cities, and generations marked by war. Whether that dissent remains scattered or grows into something larger may help determine whether another regional catastrophe proceeds unchecked or encounters resistance strong enough to alter its course.