Interview: Trump’s Criminal War on Iran and Religion
In this interview, I expose the false pretexts for Trump's war on Iran and the role of religion in the violence.
In this interview, I expose the false pretexts for Trump's war on Iran and the role of religion in the violence.
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.
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 Libertarian Institute has produced this urgent plea for humanity to choose peace over war.
John Pilger’s film ‘The Coming War on China’ should be viewed by anyone concerned about the world's greatest threat to peace: the US government.
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.
My reply to an Iranian journalist's questions about whether Iranians benefit from the nuclear agreement and the risk the US will end it.
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.
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.
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.
What the Times is really saying in this editorial, translated from newspeak, is that the U.S. should go on punishing Iran with sanctions until it surrenders its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes
Bob Schieffer on CBS Face the Nation interviewed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, opening by asserting as fact that there is a "continued push for nuclear weapons in Iran", even though there is no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
In truth, what the Times is actually describing here as a "hard line" is the insistence of Iranian presidential candidates that Iran will not surrender its rights under the NPT.
Jacques E. C. Hymans urges that it is time for the U.S. and Israel to stop overreacting about Iran’s nuclear program, which might otherwise be a welcome departure from the usual fearmongering, but for the fact that the reason he offers is just a new spin on the same old propaganda
Members of the priesthood are more than willing to convince themselves of their own propaganda out of devotion to the state religion.
The claim that the IAEA report from November suggested that Iran was “closer to the ability to produce the 90 percent uranium needed to provide fissile material for atomic bombs” is categorically false.
The January/February issue of Foreign Affairs features an article titled "Getting to Yes With Iran: The Challenges of Coercive Diplomacy" by Robert Jervis.
A recent editorial in the Washington Post suggests that the Obama administration should threaten Iran with war if it doesn't accept U.S. ultimatums. It begins: AS THE YEAR begins, the Obama administration and its diplomatic partners are expecting the...
What Thomas L. Friedman is really saying in his latest column about Egypt's newly elected president.
Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News obtained a copy of a Department of Defense report to Congress that has some interesting bits.
The Washington Post has no problem whatsoever with publishing articles that advocate criminal acts of violence.
So Iran is a very "real and dangerous" threat because we know it is undergoing nuclear weapons-related activities, even though there is no evidence that this is the case.

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.