Hezbollah Returns: It Didn’t Start a War, It Is Ending One
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | March 12, 2026
Hezbollah’s intervention in the war with Israel followed months of Israeli ceasefire violations in Lebanon, challenging Western media narratives about responsibility.
Key Takeaways
- UNIFIL recorded more than 15,400 Israeli ceasefire violations in Lebanon between November 2024 and February 2026.
- Hundreds were killed inside Lebanon during the ceasefire period, including around 150 civilians, while Israeli strikes repeatedly hit Beirut.
- Hezbollah largely maintained the ceasefire for 15 months, cooperating with the Lebanese Armed Forces despite continued Israeli attacks.
- Western media narratives claiming Hezbollah “dragged Lebanon into war” overlook the ongoing Israeli military actions and territorial violations.
- Hezbollah’s battlefield performance suggests the group retained significant military capacity, contradicting claims that it had been decisively weakened.
Media Narrative vs. Reality
When Lebanese Hezbollah chose to fire on Israel, effectively transforming the US-Israeli assault on Iran into a regional war, it did so in retaliation for aggression against Lebanon. Contrary to what Western corporate media has reported, the group is not responsible for initiating the war, and its role in it is crucial to the region’s future.
At the beginning of this month, the BBC ran a story entitled “Battered and isolated, Hezbollah drags Lebanon into another war”. Written by the British State-funded media’s correspondent in Tel Aviv, the piece not only presents a biased and false depiction of events, cheap propaganda that you would expect from the Sun or other tabloids, but fails to even mention Israel in its title.
CNN and others throughout the Western corporate media landscape also published pieces with similarly worded headlines. Therefore, the first point of entry into this topic is to establish the facts, which reveal just how atrocious the BBC and others have been in their framing of the Lebanon-Israel war.
On February 25, 2026, UNIFIL, the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, had recorded over 15,400 Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement that technically went into effect at the end of November 2024. This included the killing of hundreds of people inside Lebanon, mostly Lebanese, but also Syrians and Palestinians, including around 150 civilians in total.
Thousands of civilians, over the 15-month ceasefire period, were forced to flee their homes due to bombings, while Israel attacked the capital, Beirut, a number of times. Additionally, Israel was caught spraying cancer-causing chemical substances across southern Lebanon, also illegally occupying seven points there and refusing to leave the nation’s territory.
That entire time, Hezbollah held its fire and cooperated with the Lebanese Armed Forces, even when Lebanon’s pro-US Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam, pursued a campaign against the group. He aggressively pursued Israeli-US demands, forcing the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah, while announcing his intentions to eventually normalize ties with Tel Aviv, a blatant stab in the back to his own people, who were experiencing daily bombing raids by Israel.
Israel committed more ceasefire violations of the Lebanon truce than any military has ever committed against any ceasefire in human history.
In other words, the idea that Hezbollah dragged Lebanon into a war is categorically false. Israel never implemented its side of the deal, and for the residents of southern Lebanon, the war was ongoing throughout those 15 months. The only reason we continued to call it a ceasefire is that Hezbollah chose to uphold it.
The Myth of Hezbollah’s Weakness
Following the cessation of hostilities — at least from the Lebanese side — in November of 2024, US and Israeli officials publicly bragged that they had defeated Hezbollah. In February of 2024, then US envoy to Lebanon, Morgan Ortagus, asserted publicly that Hezbollah had been “defeated” and that its “reign of terror” was over.
This theory of Hezbollah’s apparent weakness was widely accepted among Western leaderships. Evidently, the Lebanese leadership under Nawaf Salam had also gotten this impression. They believed Israel’s unsubstantiated statistics about how it had taken out the majority of the group’s weapons, believing that the terrorist pager attacks and assassinations of key leaders had, in effect, destroyed the organization. At the very least, Hezbollah was believed to have been badly degraded and hanging on by a thread.
Here for the Palestine Chronicle, I have been writing over the past 15 months against this notion, arguing that the merits of this argument do not hold up to scrutiny. The reasons for this are rather simple: the group has a ground force of around 100,000 fighters — larger than the Lebanese Army — as it also demonstrated all the way up until the last days of the 2024 war that it still possessed strategic weapons.
Hezbollah was so confident in its stockpile of drones, for example, that there were accounts of them using dozens of them in singular operations against invading Israeli soldiers toward the end of November 2024. In addition to this, at the end of the conflict, is when the group began to reveal its most deadly capabilities, which clearly still existed after the ceasefire was declared.
The fall of former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad was initially interpreted as being a major impediment to the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah, yet this eventually turned out to be only partially true. There were even some sources that argued that larger quantities of weapons were being transferred than in the last years of Assad’s reign in power. Other sources alleged that weapons belonging to the former Syrian Arab Army (SAA) may have fallen into Hezbollah’s hands during the collapse of the state.
A key reason why the weapons continued to flow into Lebanon was that the new Syrian state had no real security apparatus. It is, in essence, a collection of armed groups that operate in an environment inside the country where gangsters, local militias, and groups all maintain their own arms.
As has been on display since Ahmed al-Shara’a came to power, he is unable to control many of the militias inside the country, despite his best efforts alongside his US allies to do so. The conflict in Sweida and the coastal massacres were great examples of this.
Therefore, when Hezbollah chose to retaliate against Israel after 15 months of non-stop fire against Lebanon, they did so not from a position of weakness, but with the understanding that it was waging a war effort with the most favorable circumstances for achieving victory.
A War Israel Provoked
Although there are many within the Lebanese Army that seek to resist and protect Lebanon, including its current commander — after all, it is the nation’s official armed forces — it is held back by the government and under constant pressure from the United States. The US does not allow it to possess strategic weapons and won’t allow Hezbollah to integrate into it.
This means that Hezbollah is the only force capable of defending the country against Israeli aggression. That being said, if the pro-US regime in Syria — which has already reached a security understanding with the Israelis — attempts to attack Lebanon, the Lebanese Armed Forces will likely prove capable of defending their borders.
Although the Lebanese Army is not capable of fighting Israel, the Syrian militia forces that constitute its army are clearly less well prepared. Hezbollah will also likely assist the Lebanese Army in such a defense, as it did against Daesh and Al-Qaeda militants during the Syrian War.
Hezbollah, since entering the conflict against the Israeli occupiers, has managed to inflict countless deadly ambushes, thwarted two landing attempts in the Bekaa Valley, and taken out dozens of Israeli military vehicles with guided anti-tank weapons along the border area. In addition to this, it has fired precision missiles at strategic locations south of Tel Aviv and around Haifa, accurately striking their targets with pinpoint precision.
The strength of Hezbollah this time around has shocked Israeli analysts, who are scrambling to explain the sudden revival of the group that they believed to have been weakened south of the Litani River (southern Lebanon).
It is likely that Hezbollah are seeking to drag the Israeli army as deep into Lebanese territory as possible, making them commit to a costly invasion, one in which they can then engage in all-out ground warfare. While Israel has air superiority and more advanced weapons, Hezbollah is a much more formidable ground force than the Israeli army.
In order to force the Israelis into committing to such a large-scale invasion, where their troops will be led into countless ambushes — especially if they try to invade the Bekaa Valley through Syria — we may even see some cross-border operations in the future.
All of this could have been avoided by the Israelis and their arrogant backers in the White House, yet they chose to illegally occupy Lebanese lands and to violate the ceasefire at least 15,400 times. Just as is the case in Gaza, where Israel has committed around 2,000 ceasefire violations so far, it is they who are at fault.
Despite the fact that Hezbollah’s true strength is on full display and that Israel clearly started this conflict, the corporate media will continue to lie about the situation in Lebanon. This should come as no surprise, considering their atrocious and racist reporting throughout the Gaza genocide.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
EU states seek ‘talks’ with Iran for access to Strait of Hormuz: Report
The Cradle | March 13, 2026
European countries have been reaching out to Iran for negotiations to allow their vessels to pass safely through the Strait of Hormuz, informed sources told the Financial Times (FT).
Two officials cited by FT said that France was among the EU countries participating in these talks. Another indicated that Italy had also made attempts to open dialogue with Iran on the matter.
The sources stressed that there is no guarantee of progress in the talks or of Iran’s willingness to negotiate on the issue.
There have also been disagreements among EU states, as some have expressed discomfort with direct talks with the Islamic Republic, according to the report.
China, India, and Greece have also reportedly reached out to Tehran. Iran’s Ambassador to India, Mohammad Fathali, indicated on Friday that Indian ships can expect safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
The FT report comes as the global price of oil has surpassed $100 per barrel, after dropping from $120 to $90 following US President Donald Trump’s claim that the war on Iran could end soon.
It also comes as Tehran has been targeting oil tankers that have tried to cross the Strait of Hormuz in violation of Iranian warnings.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said this week that an “international coalition” could soon be escorting vessels through the strait.
“My belief, that as soon as it is militarily possible, the US Navy, perhaps with an international coalition, will be escorting vessels through,” he stated, adding that Washington still needs to gain “complete control of the skies.” Iran’s missile rebuilding capabilities also must be “completely degraded.”
Yet Trump says Washington will only escort vessels “when needed.”
Several tankers were recently hit, including a US-owned vessel in the northern Persian Gulf this week.
Tehran announced on Thursday that some countries would be allowed to transit the Strait.
“Some countries have already talked to us about passing the strait and we have cooperated with them. As far as Iran is concerned, we feel that those countries that joined the aggression should not benefit from safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi said on Thursday.
After Yemen began its pro-Palestine blockade in the Red Sea following the start of the Gaza genocide in 2023, Washington launched a naval operation under the name Prosperity Guardian – aimed at deterring Sanaa’s forces and facilitating the transit of vessels.
The US failed to secure enough partners, and the mission ultimately failed.
Trump on Hormuz: “Others must take care of it” after US falters
Al Mayadeen | March 14, 2026
US President Donald Trump said Saturday that countries relying on oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz should take responsibility for “safeguarding” the vital maritime corridor, with the United States offering its “assistance.”
“The United States of America has beaten and completely decimated Iran, both Militarily, Economically, and in every other way, but the Countries of the World that receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage, and we will help — A LOT!” Trump reiterated on social media.
“The US will also coordinate with those Countries so that everything goes quickly, smoothly, and well. This should have always been a team effort, and now it will be,” he further claimed.
Trump says US destroyed Iran military, but demands China secure Hormuz
Earlier, Trump posted on Truth Social, calling for multiple nations to send warships alongside the US to keep the Strait of Hormuz “open, safe, and free”. His post specifically named China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
The request drew immediate attention for its irony, as China is both a strategic rival of the United States and maintains close relations with Iran. Trump’s call for Chinese assistance in a US-led operation to secure a major oil chokepoint underscores the contradictions and hyperbole in his adminstration’s messaging, following a horrific press conference by War Secretary Pete Hegseth a day earlier.
Trump also claimed that Iran’s military capabilities are “100% destroyed”, yet immediately acknowledged that Tehran could still deploy drones, mines, or short-range missiles along the strait. He urged the creation of an international coalition to manage threats in the waterway, highlighting a sharp contradiction between his declaration of total victory and the perceived need for global military support.
Kharg Island strike escalates Gulf tensions
Earlier, the Trump administration conducted an attack on Kharg Island, a critical hub for Iranian oil exports. While the strike did not target oil infrastructure, reports suggest Washington may be considering a larger operation to invade and control the island, a move that could further destabilize the region.
US control over Kharg Island could provoke Iranian retaliation against shipping routes, oil facilities in the Strait of Hormuz, or the island itself, pushing energy markets into uncertainty.
Brent Crude has climbed sharply since the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran, rising from around $70 per barrel in late February to $103.14 for April contracts. Analysts interpret Trump’s public statements as an attempt to reassure buyers and ease market anxiety, yet the combination of strikes on Kharg Island and the ongoing threat in the Strait of Hormuz continues to push prices higher.
Conflicting US messaging and regional skepticism
Trump’s post follows a series of contradictory statements from senior US officials over the past week. Hegseth previously insisted the Strait of Hormuz was not closed, blaming Iranian missiles for disrupted shipping while claiming the situation was under control. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Energy Secretary Chris Wright gave conflicting timelines regarding the readiness of the US Navy to escort oil tankers through the strait.
Analysts remain skeptical about the US’s ability to secure Hormuz, citing capacity constraints, Iran’s asymmetric military capabilities, and the logistical challenges of establishing a multinational escort operation. RBC Capital Markets described the proposed $20 billion US insurance program for vessels as limited and unlikely to reassure market participants fully.
Despite Trump’s claims of decapitated Iranian forces, Tehran’s military remains operational, with the capability to target enemy assets and infrastructure in the Gulf and beyond.
Who Is closer to collapse?
By Eduardo Vasco | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 14, 2026
Everything Trump has said about the war with Iran is pure lie or at least a major distortion of the facts. In the middle of this week he boasted that he had supposedly destroyed virtually the entire defense infrastructure of the country, including its naval fleet, air force, and missile capabilities. He even went so far as to declare that the United States had won the war.
Only the hypocritical journalists of the Pentagon’s propaganda machine — the same ones who like to present themselves as impartial and even critical of Trump’s domestic policies — can pretend to believe it and attempt to brainwash their audience with this farce.
Just as with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the imperialist industry of lies is trying to force down the audience’s throat the idea that Iran is on its knees before the omnipotence of the United States and Israel. Yet U.S. intelligence itself admits that the Iranian regime “is not in danger,” despite nearly two weeks of incessant bombing and heavy manipulation.
Of course Iran is the victim of a cowardly war of aggression, whose enemies have no shame in bombing kindergarten schools killing 160 girls or in causing acid rain that brings illness to civilians through attacks on oil facilities. They are historic war criminals, accustomed to using the vilest and most despicable methods to achieve their objectives of annihilation.
But the country’s political and military high command knew this was inevitable and had been preparing for a confrontation of this magnitude for decades. Iranian resilience has few competitors in the world. They are prepared to endure high costs with the certainty that their war is sacred and that victory will be achieved.
Because victory, in an asymmetric and disproportionate war such as that of an oppressed country against the greatest oppressive power in the history of humanity, does not need to — and will not — be achieved through the destruction of the enemy. It is enough to prevent the United States and its Israeli outpost from achieving their short- and medium-term objectives. In a time of structural crisis of the imperialist system, even in its very heart — the United States itself — not only will the enemy fail to achieve its goals, but it will also weaken in a way never seen before.
When have American military bases been struck as they are being struck in this war? When have Americans had to evacuate so many embassies and consulates as they are doing now? When has the all-powerful U.S. arms industry been so humiliated by seeing such expensive defense systems devastated — the very systems that supposedly protect its clients in the region?
Iran has the potential to generate indelible economic damage to the United States and to the entire global imperialist system. And it is already showing its weapons by closing the Strait of Hormuz and bombing refineries in the Persian Gulf. In a certain sense, the game has turned against imperialism: it seems that control over the world economy is not as tight as once believed. It seems that those who control, in a certain sense, this world economy are not the developed, rich, first-world countries, but rather the “lunatic” and “fanatical” ayatollahs.
The magazine The Economist, the leading mouthpiece of international bankers, revealed the despair of these speculators by featuring on its most recent cover the headline: “A War Without Strategy.” The most powerful people in the world are beginning to panic in the face of Iranian resilience and are already questioning the effectiveness of Trump’s aggression.
Let us not deceive ourselves: they fully support the total destruction of Iran. For them, not a single stone of the millennia-old Persian society should be left standing. We are speaking of the promoters of the genocide of at least 70,000 Palestinians. Proof of this support is the shameful vote in the UN Security Council, proposed by the puppet state of Bahrain, which condemned the legitimate Iranian retaliation against artificial regimes sustained by the United States and Israel in the Gulf, yet said not a single word about the aggression Iran is suffering.
Indeed, the game has turned against imperialism. The closure of Hormuz means the strangulation of the global economic system and therefore the suffocation of the American economy itself. The use of international oil reserves is already being seriously considered to contain the exponential rise in prices — an absolutely exceptional measure effective only in the very short term.
The White House, although it does not admit it, knows that the plan is backfiring: Trump, nervous, has already said that the U.S. armed forces will escort ships that need to pass through the Strait of Hormuz in order to guarantee the transport of oil. It seems like a bluff, at least for now. In any case, if they attempted it, at the current level of escalation there is little doubt that Iran would destroy the escort and sink those ships.
The United States would already be wasting about $2 billion per day on this war. It is extremely costly for public finances, especially with a staggering debt of nearly $40 trillion. The continuation of the war could accelerate a new financial crisis worse than that of 2008 — as well as an oil crisis worse than that of 1973. The global capitalist system itself would be brought to its knees.
The position of The Economist expresses the dissatisfaction of the international bourgeoisie, including the American one. Some Democratic and even Republican congressmen have once again been mobilized to criticize the government. At the same time, they also represent layers of ordinary citizens, workers, small business owners, and farmers who feel betrayed by Trump after he was elected promising to end imperialist wars under the slogan “America First.”
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released the day after the war began showed that only one in four Americans supported the imperialist aggression, while 43% opposed it. In subsequent polls there was greater balance: first 56% opposed and 44% in favor (NPR/PBS/Marist, March 2–4); then 42% in favor of stopping the attacks and 34% in favor of continuing them (NYT, March 6–9). This indicates that the CNN-Fox News-NYT-WP propaganda apparatus has worked to present the aggression against Iran from a positive point of view, leading many Americans to believe that the United States is right after the initial shock.
But trust in the media is no longer as blind as it once was. In 2001 a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 93% support for the invasion of Afghanistan, while Gallup showed nearly 90%. When the United States invaded Iraq two years later, support was also enormous: 72% according to Gallup and 70% according to the Pew Research Center. The extermination of civilians and the military disaster, despite the destruction of those countries and the eventual expulsion of the U.S. army, led to a wave of protests across the country, driven by the outbreak of the capitalist crisis in 2008. Since then, the political consciousness of Americans has been rising, even if timidly due to the high dose of stupidity among the American people.
Today there is a growing number of influencers, mainly on the right, who oppose neoliberal globalization whose military manifestation is precisely the aggressions carried out by the United States army. Many former members of the armed forces, intelligence services, and the U.S. government are now independent commentators who enjoy great popularity and openly criticize imperialist actions. Most importantly, they influence the very social base of the Trump government: citizens disillusioned with establishment politicians and with the status quo who believed Trump would be different. Although not yet entirely visible, there is a crisis within Trumpism reflected in the complete marginalization of figures such as Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., while Marco Rubio takes the reins of foreign policy.
American society has been divided for some time, and since the first months of the second term the Trump administration itself has suffered a possibly incurable fracture. The military and economic disaster of the aggression against Iran will certainly contribute to further weakening this fragile political and social structure.
On the surface it may even seem that Iran is losing the war. But deep down, the defeat has already been decreed for the United States.
A War that Backfired: Why the US-Israeli Campaign Is Strengthening Iran
By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | March 14, 2026
Contrary to the rhetoric of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not on the verge of collapse. In fact, it appears as if this war against them could end up strengthening and cementing the government’s position, not only regionally, but among its own people.
As the regional war rages on across West Asia, it becomes more and more clear that Iran is capable of dictating the pace of the conflict. The US, with no clear goals, has failed to achieve escalation dominance. The Trump administration has therefore been searching for alternative strategies to try, and change this dynamic.
Most Western analysts, who have a warped perception of Iran, are currently struggling to get their heads around what is truly happening. It appears as if the decades of speaking to themselves have caged them within their bubble world. The only Iranians they talk to are individuals who are vehemently anti-government, most of whom have no real idea what is going on inside Iran, are members of ideological cults, and are totally ignorant of the country’s history.
The Western consensus perspective on Iran is that the Islamic Republic is a monstrous, malevolent regime, one which they portray through all the stereotypical orientalist depictions of the region that have been promoted for decades.
Although Iranians who support cult-like movements, such as the followers of Reza Pahlavi, believe that they, as Persians, are somehow excused from being victims of Western racism. Many of them, due to their notions of Persian supremacist views, those upheld by their Israeli-backed puppet leader’s father, believe that, because in their minds they are “the true Aryans”, the Americans and Israelis do not view them as sub-humans.
It is relatively unknown to Westerners that the Pahlavists think this way, but many of them are extraordinarily racist against Iran’s minority communities. Interestingly enough, these delusions that they are going to be treated better by the United States than any of their neighbors are still beliefs you will see them clinging onto. In reality, the US and Israel take these delusions just as seriously as the Taliban’s Pashtun nationalism, which also led to claims of being “the original Aryans”.
The average American or Brit cannot distinguish between Arabs and Persians; they simply know that there is a Middle East where dark-skinned Muslim peoples live. The Israelis may, on average, know a little more, but hate everyone equally.
This being said, it was this kind of orientalist thinking, lacking any nuance, that led to the historic mistake of the US-Israeli war on Iran. The concept that by waging a war of aggression, where you kill Ayatollah Khamenei and a group of top officials, the entire system will collapse like a deck of cards. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Every few years, we constantly hear about the “imminent collapse of the regime”, yet it never comes. The only way that there will be a regime change is through efforts on the ground, not a bombing campaign, and not even in the event that the US invades, which I will explain below.
While Iran is an incredibly complex country and no analysis of this brief could touch on all the elements at play, there are a few key points in the Islamic Republic’s history that are key to understanding it today.
The first point to understand is what happened during the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which ushered in the revolutionary movement that governs the country today. The revolution against the Shah did not happen overnight; it was a process that took years of collective action, mass general strikes, sit-ins, and saw the participation of all elements within the society.
In the end, the 1979 revolution ended up becoming an Islamic revolution. Under the rule of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, the pro-Western dictator led what was known as the White Revolution, a campaign of reforms that sought to “Westernize” the country, while undermining the Islamic clergy and leading to the repression of Islam more generally. Therefore, the revolt against the Shah included an element that sought to reinstate the former position of Islam inside the country, meaning that people used Islam as a means of resistance.
We cannot, however, leave out the fact that Leftists also played a large role in the revolution itself and that the uprising against the Shah was not just simply an Islamic movement led by Ayatollah Khomeini alone. Therefore, following the overthrow of the Shah, the newly installed system faced the tall task of forming a government that could be accepted by the people. Groups, for example, the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK), disagreed with the new leadership, as did others.
The subsequent takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, creating an immediate crisis between Iran and America, would end up setting the tone for what was to come next. In September of 1980, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was encouraged by the US to launch an invasion of neighboring Iran.
The Iran-Iraq War was fought for nearly 8 years, and at a time when the Iranians were militarily much less prepared and armed to do so. While many expected that this war would lead to the collapse of the Islamic Republic, it did the very opposite. The motivating factor for many Iranians, who had not even experienced two years of their new government’s rule, was the Islamic doctrine they were fighting under.
Between 500,000 to 1 million people were killed in the war, which left around two million others injured. That meant that a significant portion of Iran’s population was either wiped out or injured, many of whom died horrible deaths, such as through chemical weapons attacks.
Although deadly and a war that drained resources, putting real strain on society as a whole, it ended up hardening the stances of many. It is not uncommon to hear from Iranians that people will use the sacrifices made during the Iran-Iraq War to justify all kinds of policies that may come under scrutiny.
The same year that the Iran-Iraq war ended, the US Navy decided to shoot down an Iranian civilian airliner in the Gulf of Hormuz, killing 290 Iranians, including 44 children. These events ended up cementing the ideals of the Islamic Republic among its people.
Fast forward now to 2009, when there was a public uproar about the Iranian Presidential election being rigged. This triggered the Green Movement, a mass mobilization across the country that called for reform. Bear in mind now that the relatively new system of governance had been under constant US sanctions since 1979, meaning that the pressure was consistently being turned up on the civilian population.
The 2009 Green Movement ended up leading to what is known as the Reformist camp in Iran attaining greater power inside the country, opposed to the Principalists, referred to in the West as the “hardliners”, who represented the Islamic revolutionary purest camp. For those who may be wondering, the reformists represent the more capitalist, or business class, inside the country. They have historically sought to mend ties with the West, and it was under reformist President Hassan Rouhani that the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was signed.
All of this time having passed since the Iran-Iraq War, where the people were left to live under ever-intensifying sanctions, brought about social change. Still, there remained a sizable bloc of the Islamic revolutionary movement’s base, but many became disillusioned and sought amendments to the system. To be clear, amendments do not mean regime change; they simply sought to achieve changes in their nation.
Although no authoritative polling exists to prove this, it’s generally thought that the base of the Islamic Republic’s support falls within the range of 30 million people, out of 93 million, with the majority falling in the zone of somewhat neutrality; they have complaints or skepticism, but don’t want the government to be toppled to install a Western puppet. Then you have the rest, which fall into the regime change camp, the size of which is often overinflated, but nonetheless certainly exists in its different flavors.
This war appears to have revived Iranian nationalism, the necessity of the revolutionary movement that governs the country, reminding the people why they overthrew the Shah and held so much animosity towards the United States government. For those young people who grew tired of the constant anti-imperialist slogans, it is all starting to make sense to them. This is the reason why their government has been spending so much money backing their regional allies (the Axis of Resistance).
For the Iranian people, they have just seen the theories being proven true that many of them once rolled their eyes at. The US and Israel are killing thousands of their countrymen and women, they slaughter their children, they bomb their oil storage tankers, and create black acid rain. On the first day of the war, the US opened the conflict with the worst civilian massacre they have committed since the Vietnam War, murdering around 180 schoolgirls with a double-tap strike.
Not only have they seen the terror that the US and Israel have unleashed on their people, but they are also witnessing the destruction of their cultural heritage sites.
During the Iran-Iraq War, the government may have been cemented in its place, but this time, there is a real difference; they are able to fight back effectively. The people are seeing the successes of their military and that they were able to lose their leader, but continue fighting. Instead of taking a beating, Iran is dictating the pace of the conflict, battering all the US’s military bases and standing up to the entire region.
Even for those Iranians who have many criticisms of their government, they have come to the streets in numbers and united with those they used to argue against, because the war has created the biggest rally behind the flag moment in decades. That is what the US-Israeli aggression has done: it has managed to unite Iranians in a way we have not seen in recent memory.
For those who have been writing about this issue for some time, this was a predictable outcome. The Iranian government is not as barbaric and stupid as it is depicted through Western propaganda. In the months following the 12-Day War last year, if you paid attention, you may have realized that the government began leaning into Iranian nationalism and symbolism more than ever, because it understood that the next war was going to require unity from across the spectrum.
So for those who believed that this war would somehow overthrow the government, the exact opposite appears to be happening. This war of aggression may end up being an event similar to the Iran-Iraq War in the way it cements the existence of the Islamic Republic. As for an American ground invasion, if they try, they will be met by millions who will mobilize to crush it, just as they did in the 1980s, but with better training and more sophisticated weapons.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
How Zionist Control Is Hurting US Interests
By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – March 14, 2026
The recent US attack on Iran has raised criticism both internationally and at home due to President Trump’s shift from America First to Israel First and over the Zionist control over the US establishment.
US-Israel Strategic Alignment: Historical Patterns
Escalating tensions between the US, Israel, and Iran have raised a critical concern in global geopolitics: has the US attacked Iran to protect its regional interests, or has it jumped into this fray to defend Netanyahu’s Zionist regime in Israel and its strategic interests? The history of American foreign policy decisions since the establishment of the illegitimate Israeli state suggests that protecting Israel’s national and strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond has become a key aspect of the United States’ strategic priorities.
Throughout history, whenever Israel felt threatened or insecure by a regional power, Washington has always supported it directly or indirectly. The historic rivalry between Israel and Iran and its escalation after the recent genocidal operation by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) has rendered the situation more intense. Israel considers Iran’s missile capabilities and nuclear program as a threat to its sovereignty and security. Moreover, Iran’s regional proxies also pose a significant threat to Israel’s expansionist agenda.
Recently, the United States and Iran were engaged in negotiations over the latter’s nuclear program. Reports propose that the two sides have made significant progress in resolving the issue peacefully. However, the United States and Israel launched a combined attack on Iran, targeting its key military and political leadership. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several other high-level military and political leaders of the country were killed in the US-Israel joint strikes. These strikes, despite positive progress in the US-Iran peace negotiations, created an international perception that the United States is fighting Israel’s war in the Middle East.
Domestic and International Backlash Against US Involvement
Dissenting voices regarding the US involvement in a foreign war are rising even within the United States. People from within the US Army are raising questions over the country’s involvement in a foreign war. Even former soldiers are asking whether the US military personnel should sacrifice their lives to secure the strategic interests of Israel. Reportedly, many US soldiers have expressed their concerns over their participation in this war against Iran. They seek to know the moral and legal status of a war waged merely to protect the interests of a specific allied country. The United States faced a similar issue during the Cold War, especially in the Vietnam and Iraq wars, when numerous military personnel criticized and questioned policies that led the country into those wars. Within both U.S. military and civilian policy circles, there is mounting pressure to more clearly distinguish between America’s core national interests and the interests of its allies.
Economic and Global Implications of the Conflict
The Middle East is the center of global energy politics, and the Persian Gulf is one of the key maritime routes for global oil supply. Iran has already blocked the Strait of Hormuz, leading to disruption in global oil and energy supply, causing inflation around the world. Oil and energy prices have surged across Europe, Asia, and other regions, impacting everyday consumers and households—including those in the United States. Due to the aggressive policies of former US governments, the country has lost trillions of dollars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The recent US war against Iran would prove far more expensive because of the latter’s geostrategic location and greater regional influence.
On the diplomatic front, this war will further tarnish Washington’s international image. Most of the Global South is already hostile to the United States’ interventionist policies. A prolonged war with Iran would not only widen the gulf between the US and its European allies, but it would also increase Russia and China’s global support. This war has already shifted global public opinion against the United States, weakening the country’s international credibility. Many developing nations are increasingly aligning themselves with Russia and China, signaling their interest in joining the BRICS coalition.
Washington’s involvement in this war, at the behest of Israel, has created significant intricacies for its regional allies. It has exposed the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a key US ally in the Middle East, to significant Iranian attacks. Iran is repeatedly targeting US interests across the region. The GCC countries are also facing disruption in the supply chain, leading to significant economic losses, due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran. Moreover, it has undermined the security and safety of the UAE for global investors. This suggests that this war would create visible fractures in the US-GCC relations.
However, the United States’ involvement in this conflict, despite knowing that it will lead to severe public backlash and impinge on the country’s interests in the Middle East and beyond, demonstrates that in Washington, it’s not the US leadership but the Zionist lobby that actually calls the shots. The release of the Epstein files further strengthens the notion that the Zionists use such tools to blackmail and influence the US leaders, including President Trump, to mold the US policies to protect Israel’s interests in the Middle East and around the world.
Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
Iran warns it may target US missile launch sites in UAE cities
By Al Mayadeen | March 14, 2026
The spokesperson for Iran’s central Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters warned that Iranian forces may target US missile launch sites operating from locations inside cities in the United Arab Emirates, following attacks launched against Iranian territory.
Lieutenant Colonel Ebrahim Zolfaghari said the US military had resorted to operating from ports, docks, and concealed facilities within UAE cities after its military bases in the region were destroyed.
According to the Iranian official, US forces launched missiles from these locations targeting the Iranian islands of Abu Musa and Kharg. The US CENTCOM had published footage of earlier attacks from desert settings where High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) fired precision munitions at Iranian territory.
Although several Gulf states have publicly claimed that their territories would not be used for attacks against Iran, open-source information suggests otherwise. Flight-tracking data indicate that Saudi Arabian airspace is being used by aerial refueling tankers supporting fighter aircraft involved in strikes against Iran. The Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia has reportedly hosted multiple Stratotanker refueling aircraft participating in these operations.
Kuwait also plays a key logistical and operational role. The country hosts US Marine contingents, communications infrastructure, command-and-control facilities, and other assets used by US forces participating in operations targeting Iran.
In Qatar, the Al Udeid Air Base serves as a central node for regional operations, hosting critical radar systems for missile early warning and satellite communications infrastructure and serving as the forward headquarters for United States Central Command air operations.
Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates hosts anti-missile radar systems and interceptor batteries, along with logistical infrastructure supporting both US and Israeli personnel, including facilities used for resupply and operational coordination.
Iran asserts right to strike launch sites
Zolfaghari addressed the UAE leadership directly, stating that Iran considers it a legitimate right to strike hostile US missile launch sites located in ports, shipping terminals, and military hideouts used by US forces in certain UAE cities.
He stressed that such actions would fall within Iran’s right to defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The spokesperson reiterated that Tehran views the targeting of US launch sites used in attacks against Iranian territory as a lawful defensive measure.
Zolfaghari also called on residents in the UAE to stay away from ports, docks, and locations hosting US military forces inside urban areas to avoid potential harm. He emphasized that Iran’s position stems from what it describes as its legitimate right to defend its sovereignty and national territory in the face of US attacks.
Additional CENTCOM-supporting infrastructure in the UAE
Beyond missile defense assets, the UAE hosts several facilities and capabilities that support CENTCOM activities:
Al Dhafra Air Base
One of the most important US-operated installations in the Gulf. It hosts:
- US Air Force fighter aircraft
- ISR platforms (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance)
- MQ-9 Reaper drones
- Aerial refueling aircraft
- Surveillance aircraft such as AWACS
Port logistics hubs
Jebel Ali Port in Dubai is the largest US Navy port of call in West Asia, regularly hosting carrier strike group vessels, destroyers, and logistics ships. It alsos serves as a major resupply and maintenance hub for the United States Navy.
Pre-positioned military stockpiles
The UAE hosts US pre-positioned equipment, including:
- Ammunition
- Armored vehicles
- Spare aircraft parts
- Logistics supplies for rapid force deployment.
Intelligence and surveillance infrastructure
Facilities linked to:
- Regional signals intelligence collection
- Satellite communication nodes
- Integrated air defense networks.
With US threats against Kharg Island escalating, and the possibility of a limited US operation to seize the strategically critical island increasingly discussed, the United States Central Command would likely view the United Arab Emirates as the primary hub for logistics and land-based strike operations against Iranian positions along the mountainous coastline opposite the country.
Given its proximity to southern Iran and its extensive military infrastructure, the UAE could serve as a key staging area for missile launchers, aircraft, reconnaissance platforms, refueling operations, and maritime logistics supporting operations around Kharg and the Gulf.
The UAE would also likely play a central role in any US attempt to control the Strait of Hormuz, particularly after Tehran restricted the passage of US- and Israeli-linked vessels through the critical waterway. The strait is one of the world’s most important maritime choke points, handling roughly 20% of global seaborne oil trade, making control of the passage a major strategic objective in any escalation.
Iran says drone strikes targeted Israeli intelligence, cyber units
Meanwhile, amid operations directed away from the Gulf and toward the Israeli-occupied territories, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Army announced carrying out drone strikes targeting key Israeli military infrastructure, including intelligence and cyber operations facilities.
In a statement, the army said the strikes targeted the Israeli military’s intelligence apparatus, specifically “Aman”, Unit 8200, which is specialized in cyber operations and data processing, and sites housing Israeli fighter jets were among the targets struck during the operation.
According to the Iranian army, the attacks were carried out in honor of “the brave fallen Iranian leaders,” naming Chief of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Abdolrahim Mousavi, IRGC Commander Mohammad Pakpour, and Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh.
American Military Failure in Afghanistan
Tales of the American Empire | March 12, 2026
As American military forces arrived in Afghanistan, they began building a network of bases to rule the entire nation. This repeated the mistakes of the Vietnam war. Each base required clean water, electricity, security, and frequent resupply, which required guarding bridges, road mine clearing, weekly supply convoys, and helicopter runs. This was expensive, required much manpower, left forces dispersed, provided ample targets for the enemy, and alienated the population with frequent “search and destroy” patrols that caused much death and destruction. Employing this failed strategy in Afghanistan was more difficult as the rugged terrain limited airpower while numerous caves provided the enemy with great hiding locations. In some areas, it was not practical to establish military outposts on good defensive terrain since mountaintops lacked road access and a local water supply. Nevertheless, American Generals insisted on military outposts everywhere, no matter the vulnerability of the base.
American combat forces should have remained mostly out of sight as a reserve force to protect large cities and dispatch units to rural areas only when a large enemy force converged to attack local forces. American aid should have focused on improving the economic infrastructure and local militia forces in a long-term, passive effort that would minimize manpower requirements, causalities, and costs.
_________________________________________________________
Related Tale; “Osama Bin Laden WAS NOT Responsible for 9/11”; 
• Osama Bin Laden WAS NOT Responsible for 9/11
Related Tale; “American Bases Overrun in Vietnam”; • American Bases Overrun in Vietnam
“The Battle of COP Keating TRADOC G2 OE Enterprise G&V”; August 10, 2012; • The Battle of COP Keating – October 3rd, 2009
“Battle of Wanat Video Recreation; TRADOC G2 OE Enterprise G&V”; July 14, 2014; • Battle of Wanat Video Recreation
“11 Days and a Wake up; Battle of Wanat”, Afghanistan War Documentary; June 2, 2019; • 11 days and a Wake Up
“Afghan War Diary 2004-2010”; Wikileaks; July 25, 2010; https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan…
Related Tale: “The False Tale of Killing Osama Bin Laden”; • The False Tale of Killing Osama bin Laden
Related Tale: “Did the US Military Withdraw from Afghanistan because of Fentanyl?”; • Did the US Military Withdraw from Afghanis…
“US Watchdog Rips Failed Nation-Building Effort in Afghanistan in Its Final Report”; December 2005; https://news.antiwar.com/2025/12/04/u…
Friendly Skies of Georgia: Are Israeli-Linked Drones Launching False Flags from Georgian Territory?
By Jeffrey Silverman – New Eastern Outlook – March 14, 2026
Reports about the possible use of Georgian territory for drone operations amid the escalation around Iran once again raise longstanding questions about hidden military infrastructure, regional security, and the role of external actors in the South Caucasus.
With over three decades of on-the-ground experience in Georgia, I offer institutional memory that provides a lens for scrutinizing recent claims that Georgian territory has served as a base for drone strikes or false-flag operations—allegations coming from neighboring states.
Similar claims have surfaced over the years in outlets like PanArmenian.net, Azerbaijan’s Trend News Agency, the former Voice of Russia, and other sources. Today, Georgian experts and officials face questioning by the State Security Service over openly circulating information in publications, including possibilities of terrorist attacks or false flags potentially to be blamed on Iran.
Looking back, a notable October 2008 article in The Hindu titled “Why a war against Iran was not inevitable” suggested the Georgia crisis influenced U.S. and Israeli military planning toward Tehran. The war’s results—boosted Russian sway and curtailed Western access—helped delay immediate attack plans on Iran, though such ideas have resurfaced amid recent escalations.
As I recently conveyed in correspondence with a longtime source and collaborator on several past articles and journalistic investigations.
Are you still active? Do you remember the earlier plans of attacking Iran from Georgia?
I remember those old talks about Georgia potentially being eyed as a launchpad for strikes on Iran—way back before the 2008 mess even kicked off.
- I dug through my files after your last message, but no luck on that original Hindu piece from October 2008 (“Why a war against Iran was not inevitable”). It’s vanished from easy access, probably archived or paywalled into oblivion.
- That said, I did come across this solid piece Rick Rozoff put up back in 2012: “U.S. Prepares Georgia for New Wars in Caucasus and Iran” (still live).
It lays out a lot of what we were chewing over right after the 2008 war—how U.S. and NATO training programs turned Georgian forces into something more expeditionary, with bases like Vaziani and Krtsanisi getting upgrades that could support bigger ops.
Institutional Memory
Georgia had purchased numerous Hermes 450 UAVs and other drones from Israel’s Elbit Systems, with Israeli technicians and trainers—some former senior IDF officers—on the ground to assist with commando units, system upgrades, and integration. Israel reportedly halted further sales under Russian pressure after 2008, but the established infrastructure, expertise, and relationships remained.
Reports have circulated of drone strikes near Nakhchivan’s airport just days ago—Azerbaijan attributed them to Iran, while Tehran dismissed the claims as an Israeli provocation designed to escalate tensions.
Similarly, around 30 drones were detected over Abkhazia on March 4. Some sources suggested Ukrainian origin, while others implied staging from Georgian-controlled areas targeting the breakaway region.
I also recently shared relevant information live on a podcast with Victor-Hugo Vaca II, who is another Georgian-based American journalist, thus bringing the matter back into public view.
Moreover, the very same day, I contacted longtime colleagues from the Georgian media landscape—people I worked alongside as editor-in-chief of the Georgian Times and later as an English-language reporter and editor for Public TV (the state broadcaster) during the 2008 war. I first presented these latest concerns to both public and private Georgian media, including Georgian State Security:
The time feels right to dig deeper!
A fellow journalist, Victor-Hugo Vaca II, going on Redacted with Clayton Morris live, sent me this message:
On Wednesday, March 11th, 2026, at 12:25 PM, Victor-Hugo Vaca II wrote:
Our podcast show was seen by producers of Redacted with Clayton Morris, who will be reporting on this development, so the cat is out of the bag, and you might as well publish the story sooner than later. It will get international attention today, March 11, 2026, when the show goes live at 4pm EST. If you are not able to publish the story, you are welcome back on my show to read the article should you not be able to publish the article in a timely manner.
That being said, I’m not afraid because the truth is on our side. Can you publish the story today so that I can forward the report to producers before the show is aired and they can give you credit for your journalism?
About drone bases in Georgia!
It is being reported in the Georgian media that Gia Khukhashvili, a military expert, has been pretty vocal lately, warning that Georgia could become a target for terrorist attacks amid the wider regional mess (he’s even been summoned by the State Security Service for questioning over his comments on Iran-related stuff).
However, nothing is being mentioned about any active “Kobuleti drone base” or Israeli ops launching strikes from there. Kobuleti pops up in old military contexts (like an ELINT battalion back in the day or general defense ties), but nothing current ties it directly to a drone launch site, let alone recent incidents.
On the Israeli side, the story runs deep: pre-2008.
Photos and insider chatter from back then confirmed technicians at MoD sites, and it wasn’t subtle—Israel was a key supplier until Russian pressure kicked in post-2008, freezing further deals and even leading to that infamous alleged code swap (Israel handing over Georgian drone data links to Moscow in exchange for intel on Iran’s Tor-M1 systems). That compromised a lot of the gear Georgia had bought.
My source said, “Your hunch about launches from Georgian territory (Kobuleti or that restricted airstrip near Lagodekhi) feels plausible given the proximity, and Lagodekhi is right on the Azerbaijan border in Kakheti, just a few km from where you’re living, and it’s in a sensitive zone that could host discreet ops without too many eyes.”
But publicly, the recent drone stuff points elsewhere:
- The March 5 strikes on Nakhchivan’s airport (and nearby civilian sites) got blamed squarely on Iran by Baku—drones launched from Iranian territory, per Azerbaijani MoD statements, with injuries reported and strong condemnations (Georgia’s PM even called Aliyev to express solidarity and concern). Iran denied it, calling it a possible setup, but no fingers pointed at Georgia in mainstream reporting.
- The Abkhazia incident (up to 30 drones spotted March 4) saw Abkhaz/Russian defenses claim most were downed; experts (including Russian ones) largely ruled out Georgian involvement, pinning it on Ukraine or sea-launched ops tied to the broader U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict spillover. Some debris scattered, but again, no official link to Tbilisi-controlled areas.
In the political talk show 360 Degrees of PalitraNews TV, Khukhashvili said:
“It’s a very precarious situation. I cannot provide the details. I have information from open sources, and the information is quite convincing, and therefore, I think the threat is real. A series of terrorist attacks could begin.”
It is plausible that very few folks in the current Georgian government—or even back in 2008—had real visibility into any dedicated Israeli-linked drone facilities or activities. Whether it was a formal “base” in Kobuleti (which has a long military history but no recent public ties to active UAV launches), or discreet use of abandoned/restricted strips in an environmentally protected area, or the big peat bog right behind the tourist town, a Redbook Environmental Area.
The airstrip near Lagodekhi, the setup likely stayed handled through defense ministry channels, foreign contractors, and maybe even off-books arrangements to keep plausible deniability. If higher-ups knew anything sensitive, they’d almost certainly clam up—national security, foreign relations, avoiding Russian/Abkhaz blowback, you name it.
My insider edge from those 2008+ visits is worth something now; not many can claim direct observation. If anything bubbles up from other media contacts (or if Gia Khukhashvili or others start hinting at more), it will be worth sharing with a larger and larger audience.
Meanwhile, I’m keeping tabs on any fresh reports tying Lagodekhi/Kobuleti to UAV activity—nothing solid yet in open sources, but the silence itself is telling. My shovel’s still turning.
Live Program about Drones
On Thursday, March 12th, 2026, at 2:09 AM, Victor Hugo -Vaca II wrote:
I left them speechless and gave you credit. They asked me to send them your article when you publish it, so please send it to me ASAP. No promises, but that may lead to you being on their show too. I’ve been on their show before, and the producers reached out to me, so that’s how I got on again. The show features Colonel Douglas Macgregor, and it is trending on Rumble and Bitchute and will reach over a million views on several social media platforms in under 24 hours.
It is clear that for Israel and the US to achieve their objectives in Iran, whatever they may be, it is necessary to draw in other countries: the UK, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, and Georgia. An opportunity for that happening would be a perfect storm for a concentrated attack on Iran, which borders Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Jeffrey K. Silverman is a freelance journalist and international development specialist, BSc, MSc, based for 30 years in Georgia and the former SSR
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
The Three Big Lies about Mammography Screening
By Peter C. Gøtzsche | Brownstone Institute | March 6, 2026
I dedicate this article to all women invited to mammography screening and those who love them because the public has consistently been lied to, for over 40 years. In invitations to screening, women have been told that by detecting cancers early, screening saves lives and leads to less invasive surgery.1,2 I shall demonstrate that all three statements are wrong.
Women are still being told these lies, by professional associations, screening advocates, screening researchers, cancer charities, and national boards of health.3-5 The American Cancer Society declares in a headline that “Mammography Saves Lives”4 and claims, with no references, that results from many decades of research clearly show that women who have regular mammograms are less likely to need aggressive treatments like surgery to remove the entire breast (mastectomy).5
Screening Does Not Save Lives
In the randomised trials of mammography screening, the risk ratio for overall mortality after 13 years of follow-up was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.03) for those trials with adequate randomisation.6 The estimate happened to be the same for the other trials, some of which were so poorly randomised that the average age in the two compared groups was not the same, which makes an analysis of overall mortality unreliable.
For two of the three adequately randomised trials, those from Canada and the UK, there are follow-up data after 25 and 23 years, respectively.7,8 The risk ratio for overall mortality was 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.03) for all three trials (both with a fixed effect and a random effects model, Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 3.0). In the table, the year means the year the trial started:
This is a very strong result as it is derived from a total of 25,046 deaths. We can therefore say with great confidence that mammography screening does not save lives.
If we restrict the analysis to the two trials with a very long follow-up, the result is the same, a risk ratio of 1.01 (0.99 to 1.04).
Breast Cancer Mortality Is a Seriously Flawed Outcome
It will surprise most people to learn that we cannot trust what has been reported in the randomised trials about the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality but this is an objective fact.6
A minority of the women who died were autopsied, and in several trials, cause of death was not assessed blindly.6 I have documented that assessment of cause of death was seriously biased.6,9 If we include all trials in the analysis, we would expect to see the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality in those trials that were most effective in lowering the rate of node-positive cancers (cancers that had metastasised) in the screened group.
This was indeed the case, but the regression line was in the wrong place. It predicts that a screening effectiveness of zero (i.e. the rate of node-positive cancers is the same in the screened groups as in the control groups) results in a 16% reduction in breast cancer mortality (95% confidence interval 9% to 23% reduction).6,9 This can only happen if there is bias, and further analyses showed that assessment of cause of death and of the number of cancers in advanced stages were both biased in favour of screening.
Systematic reviews that include all the trials, also the poorly randomised ones, have reported that mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 16-19%.6,10 As this estimate is of the same size as the bias in the regression analysis, this suggests that screening does not lower breast cancer mortality.
Another reason why breast cancer mortality is a flawed outcome is that screening leads to overdiagnosis, which is the detection of cancers and precursors to cancer (carcinoma in situ), which would not have come to the attention of the woman in her remaining lifetime and therefore would not have become a problem without screening. Since it is not possible to distinguish between harmless cancers and dangerous ones, they are all treated, and radiotherapy and chemotherapy given to women who are healthy increase their mortality.6
If we take into account the cardiac and lung cancer deaths caused by the type of radiotherapy used when the screening trials were carried out and generously assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 20% and results in only 20% overdiagnosis of healthy women, then there is no mortality benefit from screening.11
Finally, it is noteworthy that the most unreliable trials were those that reported the greatest reductions in breast cancer mortality.6 The difference in the effect estimates between the adequately randomised trials and the poorly conducted trials was statistically significant, both after 7 and 14 years of follow-up (P = 0.005 and P = 0.02, respectively).12
Total Cancer Mortality
Since misclassification of cause of death often concerns deaths from other cancers,6 total cancer mortality is a less biased outcome than breast cancer mortality.
Some trialists have not reported what the total cancer mortality was but we have data from the three adequately randomised trials.6,8 There was no effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, risk ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.04. There were two different age groups in the Canadian trial, 40-49 (a) and 50-59 years (b):
Since total cancer mortality is less biased than breast cancer mortality, it is of interest to see what the expected cancer mortality (including breast cancer mortality) would have been if the reported reduction in breast cancer mortality of 29% after 7 years in the poorly randomised trials6 were true.
It would have been a risk ratio of 0.95, which is significantly lower (P = 0.02)6 than what was actually found. This provides further evidence that assessment of cause of death was biased in favour of screening.
Breast Cancer Is Not Detected Early but Very Late
If we assume that the observed doubling times in longitudinal tumour studies are constant from initiation till the tumour becomes detectable, the average woman has harboured the cancer for 21 years before it acquires a size of 10 mm and becomes detectable on a mammogram.13
Given this large time span, it is misleading to call it “early detection” also because the effect of screening is trivial, namely to advance the diagnosis by less than a year.13
Yet all authorities repeat this mantra. As it is impossible that everyone working with cancer is unaware of the basics of tumour biology, we can draw the conclusion that the public all over the world is being misinformed. This is fraud because it is deliberate and because women think “early detection” will save their lives.
I once asked a famous tumour biologist, Keld Danø, during a coffee break at an international meeting, whether he agreed with me that it was impossible to lower breast cancer mortality by 30% with screening, based on our knowledge of tumour biology.14 He agreed. When I asked why people like him didn’t participate in the scientific debate, he didn’t reply and it is not difficult to imagine why. It is not wise to point out that your colleagues are wrong when you are on the receiving end of major funds from a cancer charity that touts screening.
The women suffer while everyone else prospers.
The earliest cell changes, carcinoma in situ, are not detected unless the women get a mammogram. In our systematic review of countries with organised screening programmes, we found an overdiagnosis of 35% for invasive cancer and 52% when we included carcinoma in situ.15
Although less than half of carcinoma in situ cases progress to invasive cancer,16,17 the women are nevertheless routinely treated with surgery, drugs, and radiotherapy.
The deep irony is that the surgery is often mastectomy because the cell changes may be diffusely spread in the breast, and sometimes even in both breasts. In New South Wales, one-third of women with carcinoma in situ had a mastectomy,18 and in the UK, carcinoma in situ was more often treated by mastectomy than invasive cancer,19 and the number of women treated by mastectomy almost doubled from 1998 to 2008.20
This brings us to the third big falsehood in the propaganda about mammography screening.
Screening Does Not Decrease but Increases Mastectomies
Because of the substantial overdiagnosis of invasive cancer and carcinoma in situ, and because screening only advances detection of invasive cancers slightly,13 it is inevitable that screening increases mastectomies.
In the randomised trials of screening, we found 31% more mastectomies in the screened groups than in the control groups.6
Denmark is a unique country to study this in practice as we had a period of 17 years (1991-2007) where only about 20% of potentially eligible women were invited to screening because some counties did not have screening.21 When screening starts, more breast cancer diagnoses than usual will be made and there will be more mastectomies. However, as can be seen on the graphs, the huge increases in mastectomies are not compensated by a drop in mastectomies later where there was a similar decline in mastectomies in non-screened areas as in screened areas:22
Moreover, as the next graph shows, there is no compensatory drop in old age groups:22
Yet women are told that screening leads to less invasive surgery, with fewer mastectomies. This is disinformation in the extreme.
The most commonly used trick used to disinform the women about this issue is to report percentages instead of numbers.3 Imagine a town with a certain level of crime. You divide the crimes into serious and less serious ones. Over a period of time, the rate of serious crime increases by 20% and the rate of less serious crime by 40%. This is a development for the worse. But although more people are exposed to serious crime and more people are exposed to less serious crime as well, a trickster would say that, as there are now relatively fewer cases of serious crime, the situation has improved.
It is deplorable that people who know better – screening researchers, cancer charities, national boards of health, etc – have lied to the public this way3 and still do, in direct contrast to logic and the scientific evidence.
The Final Layers of Dishonesty
The mammography screening area is riddled with dishonesty. So much that I needed to write a whole book detailing all the elaborate ways in which researchers and others had made it look like the Emperor was dressed when in fact he was naked.3
The deception is total because it always continued after I had pointed out in letters to the editor what the researchers had done wrong, and to which they responded.3,14 They therefore cannot claim they didn’t know that they continued to manipulate the data and to deceive the public.
Three of the most dishonest and most prolific authors are László Tabár, Stephen Duffy, and Robert Smith. Over many years, they aggressively attacked my extensive research on mammography screening but never with convincing arguments3,14 – they excel at ad hominem arguments.
László Tabár was the primary investigator for the Swedish Two-County study, an early trial that reported a huge effect of screening, a 31% reduction in breast cancer mortality.23 This trial was instrumental for introducing screening. However, there are so many serious discrepancies in numbers, and some of the findings are so implausible and incompatible with reported tumour characteristics, that it looks like scientific misconduct.3,6,24-27 Tabár has made a fortune on mammography screening and has a habit of threatening with litigation whenever anyone gets too close to his secrets.3,14,23
One would not think that Stephen Duffy is a professor of statistics because he has bent the data beyond belief and beyond what is appropriate in many creative and obscure ways.3,6,14 Robert Smith was once the Director of Cancer Screening at the American Cancer Society.
This triumvirate reported a 63% reduction in breast cancer mortality in an observational study.28 I pointed out some of the problems with their study,29 but in their reply,30 they compared women who attended screening with women who didn’t, although it is clear from their own paper that they were aware that such comparisons are seriously misleading.
These authors claimed, based on the Two-County study data, that they had found a “statistically significant 13% reduction in mortality in association with an invitation to screening.”31,32 This is plain wrong and totally impossible. Even if screening was 100% effective and prevented all deaths from breast cancer, it could not reduce total mortality by 13%.
They furthermore predicted that when a screening programme had been running for some time, one could expect a reduction of 3-4% in total mortality.31 This is also impossible unless screening prevents all breast cancer deaths. The lifetime risk of dying from breast cancer is 2.5-3%,33 and it was 3-4% in many countries before screening was introduced.
I dryly remarked in my book that if they continued their line of research for other diseases, they may find the recipe for eternal life.3 I also noted that the problem with lying is that
sooner or later people usually contradict themselves, which they did in relation to a study they had published in The Lancet.3
A common way of duping the readers is to say that early detection of breast cancer “reduces mortality”34 without specifying what kind of mortality this is, which makes the reader believe that screening saves lives.
The most common error in the screening literature could be that people falsely translate a recorded effect on mortality from a cancer into an effect on all-cause mortality. We see claims everywhere that common cancer screening tests save lives but a systematic review of the randomised trials found that the only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy. It extended life by 110 days on average, and as the 95% confidence interval went from 0 to 274 days, this result was on the verge of not being statistically significant.35
Another common trick is to use hypothetical statements when we have certain knowledge. For example, authors may write – even in our most esteemed medical journals – that overdetection “may” occur for invasive cancers and that it “may” cause harm through unnecessary labelling and treatment of patients who, without screening, “might” never have been diagnosed.34 These are not hypothetical possibilities; they are inevitable consequences of screening.
Final Remarks
Starting in 2000, I have published numerous scientific articles, letters to the editor, newspaper articles, and two books about mammography screening that do not leave a shred of doubt that this intervention is very harmful.37
Even though I know that no one will ever be convicted, I consider it a crime that women have been systematically lured into believing that screening is good for them. According to the principles for informed consent, people must be fully informed about the most important benefits and harms of interventions they are offered, but this ethical requirement has been brutally ignored. To such a degree that in many countries, women receive an “invitation” to mammography screening with a pre-allotted time for a mammogram they never asked about.1 This makes them believe it is very important that they show up and puts pressure on them to cancel the appointment if they don’t want a mammogram taken. If they refuse, they are often subjected to highly coercive and paternalistic follow-up letters.
Here are some examples of the deeply unethical practice:1
“We have reserved a time… If the time is very inconvenient, we ask you to contact the mammography screening centre as soon as possible;” “I am concerned that you have not yet responded to our recent invitation for a screening mammogram;” “If you would like to avoid participation, we ask you to fill out a form. You obtain this form by calling the breast-diagnostic centre;” “During the past two years, over 340,000 Queensland women have benefited from taking part in the BreastScreen Queensland Programme,” “You can take a positive step to decrease your own risk, and help us achieve our goal, by deciding to take part.”
What matters is to ensure a high uptake, “our goal,” not that the women understand what they are being subjected to.
I advise women in all countries to not go to mammography screening and to do nothing if they are “invited,” which my wife did. She had no obligation to decline an “invitation” with a pre-allotted time she never asked for, and the letter made her angry.
Screening is harmful in many other ways than those I have mentioned here, e.g. between one quarter and one half, depending on the country, of all women attending screening repeatedly will experience at least one false positive result, which can be distressful for several years.36 It therefore constitutes another tremendous harm.6,14
As I have explained elsewhere,38 the Cochrane Collaboration refused to allow us to update our Cochrane review on mammography screening last year, even though I had updated it three times before and the update was only about adding more deaths to two of the trials.
Absurdly, the ”Sign-Off Editor” noted that our review might create a potentially damaging firestorm of misinformation and we were accused of having pre-conceived ideas about no benefit of screening “rather than considering it may actually have benefit not detected.” We were also forbidden to use the term overdiagnosis even though this is standard and appears in other Cochrane reviews of cancer screening, including our own.6,12
When I first published the Cochrane review, in 2001, there was a huge scandal39 because Cochrane forbade us from publishing our data on the most important harms of screening, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment.3 This should have made the Cochrane leaders handle our update professionally, but they preferred to support the prevailing dogma about screening rather than telling the women the truth.
Only one question remains: Which country will be the first to show a little sanity and respect for the science and abandon screening?
References
1 Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Content of invitations to publicly funded screening mammography. BMJ 2006;332:538-41.
2 Gøtzsche P, Hartling OJ, Nielsen M, Brodersen J, Jørgensen KJ. Breast screening: the facts – or maybe not. BMJ 2009;338:446-8.
3 Gøtzsche PC. Mammography screening: truth, lies and controversy. London: Radcliffe Publishing; 2012.
4 Mammography Saves Lives. American College of Radiology 2026; Feb 27.
5 American Cancer Society Recommendations for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer. 2026; Feb 27.
6 Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Sys Rev 2013;6:CD001877.
7 Miller AB, Wall C, Baines CJ, et al. Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial. BMJ 2014;348:g366.
8 Duffy SW, Vulkan D, Cuckle H, et al. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality (UK Age trial): final results of a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:1165-72.
9 Gøtzsche PC. Relation between breast cancer mortality and screening effectiveness: systematic review of the mammography trials. Dan Med Bull 2011;58:A4246.
10 Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(5 Part 1):347-60.
11 Baum M. Harms from breast cancer screening outweigh benefits if death caused by treatment is included. BMJ 2013;346:f385.
12 Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;4:CD001877.
13 Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ, Zahl PH, Maehlen J. Why mammography screening has not lived up to expectations from the randomised trials. Cancer Causes Control 2012;23:15-21.
14 Gøtzsche PC. Mammography screening: the great hoax. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom; 2024 (freely available).
15 Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ 2009;339:b2587.
16 Nielsen M, Thomsen JL, Primdahl S, et al. Breast cancer and atypia among young and middle-aged women: a study of 110 medicolegal autopsies. Br J Cancer 1987;56:814-9.
17 Welch HG, Black WC. Using autopsy series to estimate the disease reservoir for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:1023-8.
18 Kricker A, Smoothy V, Armstrong B. Ductal carcinoma in situ in NSW women in 1995 to 1997. National Breast & Ovarian Cancer Centre 2000;April 15.
19 Patnick J. NHS Breast Screening Programme: annual review 2011. NHS Breast Screening Programme 2012.
20 Dixon JM. Breast screening has increased the number of mastectomies. Breast Cancer Res 2009;11(Suppl 3):S19.
21 Jørgensen KJ, Zahl P-H, Gøtzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in organised mammography screening in Denmark: a comparative study. BMC Womens Health 2009;9:36.
22 Jørgensen KJ, Keen JD, Gøtzsche PC. Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality? Radiology 2011;260:621-7.
23 Tabár L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1985;1:829-32.
24 Zahl P, Kopjar B, Mæhlen J. Mammografistudier. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2001;121:2636.
25 Gøtzsche PC, Mæhlen J, Zahl PH. What is publication? Lancet 2006;368:1854–6.
26 Zahl P-H, Gøtzsche PC, Andersen JM, Mæhlen J. Results of the Two-County trial of mammography screening are not compatible with contemporaneous official Swedish breast cancer statistics. Dan Med Bull 2006;53:438-40.
27 Gøtzsche PC. Whistleblower in healthcare (autobiography). Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom 2025 (freely available).
28 Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 2001;91:1724-31.
29 Gøtzsche PC. Beyond randomized controlled trials. Cancer 2002;94:578.
30 Tabár L, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials. Authors’ reply. Cancer 2002;94:581–3.
31 Tabár L, Duffy SW, Yen MF, Warwick J, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA. All-cause mortality among breast cancer patients in a screening trial: support for breast cancer mortality as an end point. J Med Screen 2002;9:159–62.
32 Duffy SW, Tabár L, Vitak B, Yen MF, Warwick J, Smith RA, Chen HH. The Swedish Two-County trial of mammographic screening: cluster randomisation and end point evaluation. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1196–8.
33 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Mortality Statistics: cause 1988. London: HMSO; 1990. (Series DH2 no. 15. Table 2).
34 Irwig L, Houssami N, Armstrong B, Glasziou P. Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ 2006;332:678-9.
35 Bretthauer M, Wieszczy P, Løberg M, et al. Estimated lifetime gained with cancer screening tests: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med 2023;183:1196-1203.
36 Brodersen J, Siersma VD. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med 2013;11:106–15.
37 Gøtzsche PC. Mammography screening is harmful and should be abandoned. J R Soc Med 2015;108:341-5.
38 Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane on a suicide mission. Brownstone Journal 2025; June 20.
39 Horton R. Screening mammography – an overview revisited. Lancet 2001;358:1284-5.
Dr. Peter Gøtzsche co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration, once considered the world’s preeminent independent medical research organization. In 2010 Gøtzsche was named Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen. Gøtzsche has published over 100 papers in the “big five” medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine). Gøtzsche has also authored books on medical issues including Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime.
Featured Video
The Most Important Bet You’ve Never Heard Of
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Occupied Mentality Syndrome
Saudi Arabia on the American chessboard – Part 2
By B. J. Sabri | American Herald Tribune | April 19, 2016
Since the Korean War, but particularly since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 until today, the United States has been steadily escalating its military presence in the Persian Gulf. Taking advantage of many colossal events of the past 36 years, [1] the hyper-empire has institutionalized its massive presence on land and sea, and expanded its objectives to include the unambiguous physical control of the area, as well as the clear understanding that local Arab governments should abide by them. The pretext is always the same: in “defense” of the national interests and security of the United States. From observing how the United States has been interacting with the governments of the region, and by judging from the size of its expeditionary force, we could reach a basic conclusion. The United States is occupying, de facto, the entire Arabian Peninsula. (Yemen, devastated by Saudi and American jets is yet to be conquered. Oman? Britain returned not as colonial ruler but as a soft occupying power.)
Under this articulation, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates are virtually occupied countries. If we compare this type of occupation to the mandate and protectorate regimes of the past, the results might be identical—the nations affected by it lose sovereignty. When Arab governments comply with the objectives of a foreign power that station military forces on their national milieu, then that power controls them in multiple ways including how they react to policy deliberations and what decisions they intend to take on specific issues. A good method to verify the concept of effective occupation is this: take notice of what the United States says and wants, and then compare it to what the gulf rulers do in response. (I shall discuss this detail at some point in the upcoming parts.)
If the presence of US forces or other means of political pressure are a factor in Saudi Arabia’s interventionist Arab wars, then we need to debate this issue. However, from the history of resistance to colonialism, we learnt: if a powerful state imposes its order on a nation by military means or other forms of coercion, and if this nation does not resist that imposition, then a mental subordination to the powerful state will ensue. This is especially true in the case of Saudi Arabia. One single event, 9/11, has transformed it from a US “ally” into an instant political hostage of the American Empire. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Official reveals evidence of Arab states’ involvement in US-Israeli war on Iran
- His Majesty’s head-chopper: Syria’s MI6-backed president bows to King Charles
- Forced to backtrack: ‘Israel’ drops Hezbollah disarmament goal
- Britain’s Lebanon surveillance network: A digital map for war
- Bahrain faces scrutiny for opposition crackdown after detainee killed
- Hegseth’s Pentagon Purge Designed to Prevent a Mutiny: Karen Kwiatkowski
- Greek shipping firms secretly transporting oil, weapons to Israel
- UN vote on Hormuz force delayed as Iran issues warning
- Trump and the debris of Iran war
- IRGC hits US tech giant Oracle’s data center, computing site in UAE over new assassinations
- If Americans Knew
- Israel-US kill negotiators, destroy civilian structures, but Iran’s military capabilities still largely intact – Daily Update
- ‘War crime’: Global condemnation as Israeli ministers celebrate death penalty law targeting Palestinian prisoners
- 7 Ways Israel Is Turning Lebanon Into Gaza
- World’s Leading Football Bodies Under Fire Over Israel Policies
- Experts warn of possible use of nukes against Iran
- Israeli invasion of Lebanon could be worse than 1982, warn European officials
- Passover: Liberation and collective punishment
- Trump says the quiet part out loud: (Israel’s) war on Iran > Americans’ health – Daily Update
- Gaza families reunite years after babies evacuated amid Israel’s war
- International Rescue Committee warns Gaza’s children face grave protection risks
- No Tricks Zone
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
Aletho News 