If Trump’s Iran War Is ‘5D Chess’, Here’s His Apparent Aim
Many Trump supporters are convinced he’s secretly aiming to bring down the Deep State, including with his war on Iran. Here’s the best argument for it.
Many Trump supporters are convinced he’s secretly aiming to bring down the Deep State, including with his war on Iran. Here’s the best argument for it.
I was on the Croatian podcast Slobodni to explain the historical context for the US-Israel war on Iran and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
A New York Times editorial criticizes Trump not for waging an illegal war of aggression but for making “strategic” errors in its execution.
Americans choosing to support Trump’s criminal aggression have allowed themselves to be deceived by routine war propaganda.
While Israel fuels violent protests in Iran, the US is citing the Iranian government’s deadly crackdown as a pretext for a military attack aimed at regime change.
Israel and its superpower benefactor refuse to learn the lessons from their past acts of aggression.
Health freedom advocates are faced with a choice this election of whether they believe that all children’s lives matter, or not.
The US corporate media dangerously accuse alternative sources of propagating “fake news” to maintain their own dominance as purveyors of misinformation.
On the rare occasions the US mainstream media refer to the US shootdown of an Iranian airliner in 1988, they sustain the myth it was simply a "mistake".
The official website of Iran's Supreme Leader interviewed me about US policy, Saudi Arabia, and the Qatar crisis, but censored my mild criticism of Iran.
John Kerry hails the Obama administration's "assertive diplomacy" as though the US's policies under his two terms wasn't the opposite of diplomacy.
My reply to an Iranian journalist's questions about whether Iranians benefit from the nuclear agreement and the risk the US will end it.
The Habilian Association, and Iranian self-described "Human Rights NGO", censors criticisms of the Iranian regime's rights violations for its audience.
The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) interviewed me this week about the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.
If the mainstream media were to actually inform readers of the relevance of Netanyahu's speech to the US Congress, it would defeat the purpose.
Why does the New York Times so persistently refuse to disclose that Iran is correct: the NPT does recognize it has a right to enrich uranium.
The US media persists in parroting the US government's propaganda claim that it "revealed" Iran's "covert" Fordo uranium enrichment plant in September 2009.
The New York Times presents readers with criticisms of Israel and the U.S. by Iran's Supreme Leader as though they were merely "uncompromising" opinions.
The U.S. mainstream media has a rather strange understanding of what "diplomacy" in international relations means. Under the headline "Obama Signals a Shift From Military Might to Diplomacy", Mark Landler in the New York Times offers two problematic examples that are somehow supposed to support this thesis: Iran and Syria.
There was a great deal of buzz about the initial agreement between the U.S. and its Western allies and Iran, with the media calling it "historic", "a breakthrough" and a "game-changer". The media is also characterizing the Obama administration's role as ushering in a new era of U.S. diplomacy. But the U.S. is not engaged in diplomacy, and the Iran nuclear deal is not a serious step towards rapprochement, as far as the U.S. is concerned, which is why the continuing talks will ultimately fail to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.
A Reuters headline reads "Iran says to continue building at Arak nuclear site despite deal", thus implying that its ongoing construction would be in violation of its recent agreement with the U.S. and its Western allies. But a State Department spokesperson acknowledged that "building work" is allowable under the deal.
There are a couple points worth noting about recent reporting on the recent talks between the U.S. and its Western allies and Iran over its nuclear program. The first is that the media effectively accepts the U.S. government's framework that Iran's rights derive from Washington, D.C. The second point to note about recent reporting is how meaninglessly the word "diplomacy" is being used. The full spectrum of opinion on the subject ranges from support for the Obama administration's efforts to bully Iran into surrendering its rights to criticisms of Obama for not doing even more to punish the Iranians into submission. That's it.
The New York Times has nonsensically reported that Western and Iranian diplomats are on the verge of an agreement that would freeze Tehran’s nuclear program.
On the matter of Iran's talks with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, and France) plus German (the so-called "P5+1" group), the New York Times reports: Iran has insisted that the West acknowledge its...
U.S. government officials know they don't always have to lie or deceive. Oftentimes, the media will just do it for them.
What Americans mustn't be naive about is their own government and the false pretexts it uses to manufacture consent for its policies.
The Obama administration was contacted by the Iranians. It was Rouhani who placed a call through to speak to Obama, not vice versa.
Ever notice when the mainstream media says Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust, they never actually provide a quote of him doing so? Hmm...
The so-called neoconservatives planned to implement regime change in seven countries, starting with Iraq and including Libya and Syria and, ultimately, Iran.
Award-winning Iranian journalist Kourosh Ziabari interviewed me for the Fars News Agency. Following is the text of the interview, used with his permission.

I am an independent researcher, journalist, and author dedicated to exposing mainstream propaganda that serves to manufacture consent for criminal government policies.
I write about critically important issues including US foreign policy, economic policy, and so-called "public health" policies.
My books include Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian Economics in the Financial Crisis, and The War on Informed Consent.
To learn more about my mission and core values, visit my About page.