Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US and Israeli Claims of Depleted Iranian Arsenals are Just Military Propaganda – Expert

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 05.03.2026

American officials claim Iran’s arsenal is dwindling and launchers are running low — but there’s no objective proof, veteran Russian military observer Yury Lyamin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, tells Sputnik.

“Such statements should be treated with great skepticism and seen as standard military propaganda,” Yury Lyamin says. “I believe Iran’s total number of launchers is generally underestimated.”

Yes, the number of missile launches has dropped – but why?

  • the decline in launches is largely due to constant air pressure, forcing Iranian forces to take maximum precautions
  • US and Israeli strikes on tunnel entrances at missile bases require time to clear debris and carry out safety checks

“Iran’s main missile stockpiles and launcher reserves are stored deep within underground missile bases carved into mountains, making them extremely difficult to hit. Moreover, it’s unclear how they are moved inside,” the pundit explains.

Lyamin draws attention to the fact that Iran keeps its missile launchers as simple and inexpensive as possible – they’re typically mounted on standard trailers and trucks. That allows the Islamic Republic to maintain a substantial storage of those devices.

US vs. Israel: Conflicting Assessments Stir Controversy

The Israeli side claim that “more than half” of all Iranian missile launchers have been destroyed, whereas the US insists Iran is “running out” of them.

Israeli figures are also questionable, according to the expert:

  • Israel claimed 300 launchers destroyed two days ago, but videos from the US and Israel show roughly a tenth of that
  • While it’s true not everything is captured on video, the huge discrepancy warrants skepticism

Even within the video evidence provided by Israel and the US, there are questionable cases, according to the expert:

  • Some strikes appear to have hit ordinary trucks mistaken for launchers
  • One video even shows a strike on a broken truck with its hood open
  • In another, a launcher that had already been destroyed was hit repeatedly

March 5, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Comments Off on US and Israeli Claims of Depleted Iranian Arsenals are Just Military Propaganda – Expert

Iran denies attacking Azerbaijan, suggests Mossad involvement

Al Mayadeen | March 5, 2026

Iran’s armed forces denied on Thursday that they launched drones toward Azerbaijan after Baku accused Tehran of carrying out UAV attacks in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic.

The statement was issued by the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces and carried by the Iranian state broadcaster IRIB.

Azerbaijan reports drone attack

Earlier in the day, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry claimed drones launched from Iranian territory struck targets in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, leaving two people injured.

Tehran rejected the claim and emphasized that Iran respects the sovereignty of neighboring countries, particularly regional Muslim states.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran, respecting the sovereignty of all neighboring states, especially brotherly Muslim countries, denies the launch of UAVs by the Iranian Armed Forces toward Azerbaijan,” the General Staff said in the statement.

Tehran blames Israeli involvement

The Iranian military suggested that “Israel” may have launched a drone toward Azerbaijani territory in an attempt to blame Iran and escalate tensions between the neighboring countries.

The accusation comes as regional tensions have intensified following the US and Israeli attacks on Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory operations.

Claims of covert Israeli activity in the region

The allegations also emerge amid claims of covert Israeli operations in several Gulf countries.

Speaking on The Tucker Carlson Show, American journalist Tucker Carlson said authorities in Qatar and Saudi Arabia had arrested Mossad agents accused of planning bombings in those countries. Carlson described the development as unusual and questioned the logic behind such operations.

He suggested the alleged plots could be part of broader efforts to destabilize multiple countries in the region while escalating pressure on Iran.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , , , | Comments Off on Iran denies attacking Azerbaijan, suggests Mossad involvement

The myth of military ‘decapitation’

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 5, 2026

The recent escalation in the Middle East has brought back to the center of strategic debate a recurring concept in Western military doctrine: the so-called “decapitation strike.” The idea is simple in appearance and politically seductive – eliminate the leadership of an adversary state in order to trigger institutional collapse, military disorganization, and ultimately regime change. However, historical reality shows that such an approach is far from the magic solution its proponents often imagine.

The bombings carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran, culminating in the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were clearly conceived under this logic. The expectation seemed to be that by removing the main political and religious authority of the Islamic Republic, the system would either collapse outright or face sufficient internal unrest to enable a forced transition. At the same time, it was assumed that Iran’s response would remain limited, as in previous confrontations.

That calculation proved mistaken. Instead of disintegration, there was internal consolidation. Thousands of Iranians took to the streets across the country, even under bombardment, to support the Islamic Republic and chant “death to America.” Moreover, there was no strategic paralysis among Iranian decision-makers, who promptly responded by striking targets throughout the Middle East.

This gap between expectation and reality stems from a structural characteristic of contemporary Western military thinking. Washington, accustomed to rapid interventions against fragile states, has consolidated a culture of short-duration warfare, marked by overwhelming initial destructive power followed by swift disengagement. Tel Aviv, due to its territorial dimensions and demographic limitations, developed a doctrine based on preventive strikes and the rapid neutralization of enemy leadership. However, this model tends to fail when applied against states with national cohesion, solid institutional frameworks, and mobilization capacity.

Iran is not a collapsed state, nor a fragmented tribal structure. With more than 90 million inhabitants and a political order consolidated since 1979, the country built mechanisms of succession and redundancy within its command structure. Khamenei’s advanced age had already made the question of transition an internal matter. Thus, the “decapitation” attempt did not strike at the functional core of Iranian power. On the contrary, it strengthened patriotic sentiment and expanded popular support for the government.

The strategic lesson is clear: complex political systems do not depend exclusively on a single individual. When institutions are deeply rooted and chains of command are distributed, eliminating a symbolic figure may generate martyrdom and cohesion rather than collapse.

This understanding helps explain why Russia did not adopt, in its conflict with Ukraine, a systematic policy of targeted assassinations against the political leadership in Kiev. Since the beginning of the special military operation, Moscow has demonstrated technical capacity to strike command centers and critical infrastructure. Even so, it has not prioritized the physical elimination of President Vladimirr Zelensky or other central figures of the Ukrainian government.

This choice does not stem from incapacity, but from strategic calculation. First, Zelensky’s removal could have produced the opposite of the intended effect, transforming him into an international symbol and further consolidating Western support for Kyiv. Second, the Ukrainian state structure – sustained by intense NATO assistance – does not depend exclusively on one individual leader. A replacement could occur rapidly without fundamentally altering the conflict’s dynamics.

Furthermore, Russian strategy has been characterized by a prolonged war of attrition focused on the gradual degradation of the adversary’s military and logistical capacity. This model stands in direct contrast to the logic of decapitation. Moscow appears to understand that in conflicts between organized states, victory is rarely achieved through a single spectacular blow, but rather through the systematic erosion of the enemy’s material conditions.

The myth of decapitation persists because it offers a simplified and politically marketable narrative: remove the “head,” and the body will fall. Yet recent experience demonstrates that this assumption ignores the resilient nature of modern states. Leaders can be replaced; institutions, when consolidated, tend to endure.

Ultimately, the obsession with decapitation strikes reveals more about the strategic limitations of those who execute them than about the vulnerability of those who suffer them. Recent history suggests that wars between powers or structured states are not decided by dramatic gestures, but by prolonged processes in which internal cohesion and industrial capacity weigh more heavily than the elimination of individual figures.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on The myth of military ‘decapitation’

Is the International Norm Against Assassination Dead?

By Sophie Duroy and Luca Trenta – Verfassungsblog – March 2, 2026

On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel assassinated the supreme leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei. The joint operation marked the first time either state has directly killed a sitting head of state. As with the US’s January 2026 operation against Nicolás Maduro, what stands out is not only the gravity of the act but the manner in which it was justified. Public statements emphasised Khamenei’s record and the sophistication of US-Israeli intelligence cooperation, but they did not articulate a credible legal basis for the strike.

Khamenei’s assassination represents a new stage in the erosion of the international norm against assassination. This norm has long been understood as part of a broader framework protecting sovereignty and prohibiting the use of force outside armed conflict. Under international law, the killing of a state official outside an armed conflict will almost invariably violate the prohibition on the use of force, state sovereignty, and/or international human rights law. In an influential piece written two decades ago, Ward Thomas observed that “the directly targeted killing of foreign adversaries, once rejected as beyond the pale, has become a prominent issue in debates over U.S. security policy”. For Thomas, the shortsighted policies driving the US’s so-called “global war on terror” were undermining the norm and risked spilling over to justify the killing of state officials. Yet, in 2005, he wrote with some relief that “the word ‘assassination’ itself still carries a considerable stigma”. In the wake of Khamenei’s assassination, this statement no longer seems to hold true.

Since the early 2000s, the gradual normalisation of state-sponsored assassination has lessened the stigma attached to the practice to the point that assassinating a sitting head of state without any legal justification has now become a reality. While the international norm against assassination may not yet be fully dead, its recent trajectory offers little hope for its restoration.

A gradual normalisation of assassination

The norm’s erosion was already visible in the January 2020 killing of Qassem Soleimani. The Trump administration initially invoked self-defence and imminence, before shifting to claims that Soleimani had “American blood on his hands”. International reactions were limited: a joint statement by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom focused on regional stability without directly condemning (or indeed mentioning) the killing. Subsequent cases reinforced this pattern. The Biden administration justified the 2022 killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri with the assertion that “justice has been delivered”, without any articulation of its compatibility with international law.

This apparent normalisation of assassination as a tool of statecraft rests on two interrelated mechanisms: routinisation and legitimation. Prior to the attacks of 11 September 2001, the United States was a vocal critic of Israel’s practice of assassinating Palestinian activists. After 9/11, however, it quickly adopted the practice and slowly began to legitimate it. With the US adoption of the practice, now strategically renamed “targeted killings”, assassination became increasingly routinised as a tool of statecraft.

Today, both democratic and authoritarian states employ it, and targets have expanded beyond suspected terrorists to include scientists, political opponents, bloggers, journalists, state officials, and sitting heads of state during armed conflict. Alongside covert poisoning and car bombs, methods have evolved to include drone strikes and AI-assisted targeting. The practice now spans objectives of counterterrorism, deterrence, regime security, and strategic signalling. What was once treated as an exceptional and contested measure has been bureaucratised and normalised as a tool of policy within self-proclaimed liberal democracies such as the United States and Israel. The definitional move from “assassination” to “targeted killing” facilitated this process by situating such operations within the vocabulary of armed conflict after 9/11.

In parallel, legitimation has become possible through a reinterpretation of the applicable legal framework. Since the early 2000s, the United States and Israel have been more vocal in advancing expansive readings of self-defence, imminence, and the existence of non-international armed conflicts beyond traditional battlefields to justify targeting individuals that could not be regarded as lawful targets under stricter legal interpretations. The lack of strong condemnation by other states allowed the legal justifications, however implausible, to provide a precedent for further action.

As this effort at legal justification provided a veneer of legitimacy for the routinised assassination of suspected terrorists, it became increasingly easy to rely on the newfound legitimacy of the practice to assassinate other “enemies of the state”, such as nuclear scientists or state officials like Soleimani, as well as to abandon legal justification altogether, as for al-Zawahiri.

The assassination of Khamenei as a rupture

The assassination of Ali Khamenei differs from the killings of the past two decades insofar as sitting heads of state have historically occupied a distinct normative category. As explained by Thomas, as early as the seventeenth century, “a complex combination of material and ideational factors contributed to the rise of the norm against assassinating foreign leaders” in wartime and, a fortiori, in peacetime. Even when states plotted against foreign leaders during the Cold War (for instance, the US repeatedly attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro), they always did so covertly and rarely acknowledged responsibility when exposed. In later decades, when the US targeted foreign leaders such as Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, it was careful to claim that their deaths would have been an inadvertent consequence of a strike undertaken in self-defence. Such was the stigma against targeting heads of state that, as late as 2022, some authors argued that the norm erosion triggered by targeted killings would remain “compartmentalised” to the targeting of non-state actors.

It must therefore be emphasised that the US-Israeli strike of 28 February 2026 deliberately targeted and killed the sitting head of state of a sovereign state. In addition, Khamenei’s killing was publicly embraced, and its justification was framed in moral rather than legal terms.

Despite repeated violations of the international norm against assassination, its resilience depended on states either concealing their involvement or defending their conduct through appeals to legal exemptions such as self-defence or combatant status. Both practices signalled that assassination remained normatively problematic in the international order.

When assassination is openly acknowledged and only minimally justified in legal terms, as was recently the case with Soleimani, al-Zawahiri, Haniyeh, or Nasrallah, that signal weakens. The threshold then shifts from whether the act can be legally justified to whether the target is sufficiently “bad” to warrant elimination. Whether the targets of recent assassinations “deserved” their fate is, however, less important than the implication of this shift from legality to morality for the international order. While legal arguments can be rebutted, moral claims about worthiness are less susceptible to meaningful contestation.

Alongside Jeremy Waldron, one may therefore begin to ask:“Do we want [assassination] to become a permanent capability available in principle to any of the 192 [now 195] sovereign states in the world that think of themselves as having particular persons as enemies?”

Is the international norm against assassination dead?

The systemic effects of recent assassinations, from drone strikes in Yemen to the assassinations of Soleimani and Nasrallah, are cumulative. Each muted reaction by states that style themselves as the guardians of the “international rule-based order” lowers the political cost of the next strike; each public acknowledgement unaccompanied by legal argument lowers the justificatory threshold for other states and future assassinations. Combined with the widespread availability of drone and long-range strike technologies, assassination becomes both politically easier to defend and materially easier to replicate. As a result, the practice of state-sponsored assassination, which once required covert modalities and plausible deniability, is increasingly conducted openly.

This does not mean that the norm is formally extinguished. Even under the most expansive readings of international law, as advocated by the US and Israel in recent decades, the “targeted killing” of a state official outside an armed conflict still violates the prohibition on the use of force, state sovereignty, and international human rights law. Many states continue to denounce assassination when they consider themselves as victims, and legal scholarship remains largely sceptical of expansive doctrines of imminence or “globalised armed conflict” that would render such killings lawful.

The more difficult question is whether the norm still meaningfully constrains powerful states. Norms do not disappear simply because they are violated. They erode when violations become routine, when justificatory standards decline, and when adverse reactions diminish. The 28 February 2026 assassination of Ali Khamenei features as the culmination of these three dynamics. It suggests that, at least for some states, assassination has moved from a covert and contested practice to an overt, politically defensible, and even desirable instrument of policy.

Should other states emulate this model, and should international responses remain muted, the norm will continue to hollow out. Conversely, sustained contestation, coordinated sanctions, and renewed insistence on legal justification could restore its constraining force. As such, whether the norm against assassination will effectively disappear depends less on the existence of prohibitive rules than on future practice.

Reactions by other states to Khamenei’s assassination will be decisive for the norm’s future trajectory. At present, however, that trajectory points much less toward a restoration of the stigma than toward a full normalisation of assassination as a tool of statecraft.

Dr. Sophie Duroy is a Lecturer at Essex Law School and Human Rights Centre, University of Essex.

Dr. Luca Trenta is Associate Professor of International Relations at Swansea University.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Comments Off on Is the International Norm Against Assassination Dead?

Larry Johnson: AIR POWER CANNOT BEAT an ENTRENCHED ENEMY LIKE IRAN

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – March 4, 2026

Larry Johnson argues that Iran will not back down because it sees the conflict as existential, while the U.S. lacks the long-term resolve to sustain another major war—citing failures since the Vietnam War.

He claims Iran has effectively neutralized much of the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, rendering bases such as Al Udeid Air Base, Prince Sultan Air Base, and U.S. naval facilities in Bahrain combat-ineffective, and destroying key radar systems. He argues that airpower alone—referencing “shock and awe” from the Iraq War—cannot secure victory without ground forces.

The discussion questions statements by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, contrasting his current rhetoric with past criticism of U.S. interventionism. The speaker suggests current leadership is overstating progress and creating unrealistic expectations that Iran will soon collapse.

He further argues that despite heavy bombardment, Iran remains capable of striking Israel and that damage inside Israeli cities is being underreported due to social media censorship. He claims missile defenses such as Patriot, THAAD, and Iron Dome are being depleted or are ineffective.

Strategically, he contends the U.S. and Israel lack the capacity to conquer Iran, noting its vast size, mountainous terrain, and the logistical impossibility of a ground invasion—drawing comparisons to difficulties in Afghanistan. He also points to Israel’s ongoing struggle in the Gaza Strip since October 2023 as evidence that overwhelming airpower does not guarantee political or military victory.

Overall, the speaker concludes that U.S. leadership is misrepresenting the situation, underestimating Iran’s resilience, and setting itself up for strategic and political failure.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Larry Johnson: AIR POWER CANNOT BEAT an ENTRENCHED ENEMY LIKE IRAN

Report- U.S. and Israel Are Targeting ‘Hospitals, Residential Buildings And Schools Across Tehran’

The U.S. and Israel Are Repeating The Gaza Strategy In Iran

The Dissident | March 4, 2026

Failing to achieve regime change, the U.S. and Israel are bombing civilian areas in Tehran, in an attempt to destroy Iran as a nation.

A report in the Telegraph, a mainstream British newspaper, wrote , “Tehran an ‘apocalypse’ of hospitals in flames and children buried beneath rubble”.

The report noted, “American and Israeli aircraft bombed hospitals, residential buildings and schools across Tehran on Tuesday in what residents described as ‘an apocalypse’” adding, “Millions of civilians are trapped under relentless bombardment as food and medical supplies dwindle and the death toll mounts.”

One resident of Tehran told the paper, “They have been bombing us without pause today, and the sound of explosions never stops. They don’t care where they are hitting. I have felt the shockwaves several times already”.

He added, “They are striking buildings where families live. After each explosion, people rush to help – and then another bomb hits the same area.”

The report added:

Families ration meals to make supplies last. Children go to bed hungry. Elderly residents with medical conditions cannot find their medications.

Diabetics run out of insulin. Parents water down milk to make it stretch further. Some families have not eaten in two days. Bakeries that remain open face long lines.

It went on to write:

Areas around Revolution Square in central Tehran were struck on Tuesday, causing extensive damage to residential homes in one of the capital’s most densely populated districts.

The Haft-e-Tir neighbourhood, also in central Tehran, was hit. Video footage showed destroyed apartment buildings and rescue workers digging through rubble.

A hospital in southern Bushehr was destroyed, with emergency workers frantically evacuating newborn babies as the building was struck.

Kamran ( Tehran resident) said: “Many people are trapped under the rubble. Hospitals are filled with injured patients, and staff are overwhelmed. They are even striking hospitals where the wounded are being treated.”

The scene echoed strikes on Gandhi Hospital in Tehran and multiple other medical facilities across the country.

The destruction of hospitals means the wounded have nowhere to go. Nurses carry premature infants through smoke-filled corridors as bombs fall on maternity wards.

Burn victims lie on floors because all beds are full. Surgeons operate by torchlight when electricity fails.

Medical staff work until they collapse from exhaustion, then wake and work again. Some doctors have not left their hospitals in three days, sleeping in supply closets between emergency procedures.

Millions remain trapped in Tehran, a city under sustained aerial assault.

The report added, “‘An apocalypse is unfolding here,’ said Ashkan, another Tehran resident. ‘Today has been the worst day. Those who had cars fled. Those of us without cars are left here under the bombs.’”

It went on to note:

The strikes have created a humanitarian crisis that casualty figures do not fully convey.

Food supplies have become scarce in several parts of the city as distribution networks break down and stores close.

‘I don’t know if any of my relatives are dead or alive,’ Ashkan said. ‘One kilo of potatoes is now 200,000 tomans. That was 30,000 tomans last week.’

The report also documented the repeated use of “double tap” strikes on rescue workers, writing:

The Red Crescent said more than 100,000 rescue and relief workers across the country are on full alert, but residents said help often arrives too late or cannot reach victims at all.

“By the time rescuers arrive, another bomb falls on the same place,” Kamran said, describing what appeared to be “double-tap” strikes where initial attacks are followed by secondary strikes targeting first responders – a tactic that violates international humanitarian law.

Middle East Eye reported that the U.S./Israeli slaughter 165 children at the school for girls in Minab was also the result of a “double tap” strike, writing, “The girls’ school in Iran, where 165 people were killed by an apparent US-Israeli attack, was hit with two strikes, with the second missile killing sheltering survivors, two first responders and the parent of a slain child have told Middle East Eye.”

One Red Crescent member told the outlet, “When the first bomb hit the school, one of the teachers and the principal moved a group of students to the prayer hall to protect them. The principal called the parents and told them to come and pick up their children. But the second bomb hit that area as well. Only a small number of those who had taken shelter survived.”

The father of one victim told the outlet that, “his daughter survived the first strike and was moved to the prayer hall. The second strike hit before he could reach her.”

The outlet documented other instances of “double tap strikes” used in Iran wiring:

Since the US and Israel launched a war on Iran on Saturday, some Iranians have reported attacks that resembled double-tap strikes.

A video circulating on social media shows one woman in central Tehran in distress saying: “They dropped one bomb, people went inside, then they bombed again. They killed people.”

Another shows two men on a motorcycle, with one of them describing a near-death experience.

“We went to drag out people from under the rubble, and then the jet returned twice and pounded the same location four more times. We would have been dead if we weren’t still under the rubble,” he says.

A resident of Tehran who left for Turkey told Reuters , “We saw a lot of buildings destroyed, especially on the way leaving the country. There were a bunch of buildings, a bunch of cars and streets ​were destroyed. People are panicking to leave the country. They don’t know what to do”.

According to the Western group “Human Rights Activists News Agency, “the total number of reported civilian deaths stands at 1,114, including 181 children”.

As academic Glenn Diesen noted, referring to this report , “The US and Israel are bombing hospitals, schools, residential buildings, and Mehrabad international airport in Tehran. Having failed to regime change Iran, the new objective appears to be terror-bombing Iran into submission”.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Report- U.S. and Israel Are Targeting ‘Hospitals, Residential Buildings And Schools Across Tehran’

Witkoff undermined Iran talks by peddling lies to build case for military aggression: Report

Press TV – March 4, 2026

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to West Asia, Steve Witkoff, undermined the negotiations with Iran by peddling lies to build a case for military aggression, according to a report citing regional diplomats.

“In that first meeting, both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly, […], that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60%,” Witkoff said Monday in a Fox interview, referring to the uranium’s level of enrichment.

“And they’re aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of their negotiating stance,” he claimed.

“They were proud of it,” Witkoff further claimed. “They were proud that they had evaded all sorts of oversight protocols to get to a place where they could deliver 11 nuclear bombs.”

However, a Persian Gulf diplomat with direct knowledge of the talks told MS NOW that Witkoff’s description of the conversation was false.

The Iranians told Witkoff that Iran was willing to give up the enriched uranium as part of a new agreement with Trump, according to the unnamed Persian Gulf diplomat.

The Iranians also told Witkoff that Iran enriched the uranium after Trump pulled out of a 2015 nuclear agreement brokered by the Obama administration.

“I can categorically state that this is inaccurate,” said the diplomat, referring to Witkoff’s account. “He was explaining that all of this material can all go away should we have a deal and Iran can be relieved from sanctions.”

A second person with knowledge of the talks confirmed that Iranian officials declined to discuss their country’s ballistic missiles and the resistance groups with Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and said those issues could be discussed in regional talks.

While Iran was engaged in the negotiations, on Saturday, the US and Israel, similar to previous times, started their unprovoked military assault, launching attacks on multiple cities across the country.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei Khamenei was assassinated in the terrorist US-Israeli attacks.

Iran began to swiftly retaliate against the criminal aggression by launching barrages of missile and drone attacks on the Israeli-occupied territories as well as on the US bases in regional countries.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Comments Off on Witkoff undermined Iran talks by peddling lies to build case for military aggression: Report

Iran warns all Israeli embassies ‘legitimate targets’ if Lebanon embassy attacked

Press TV – March 4, 2026

Iran has warned that all Israeli embassies worldwide will be legitimate targets if its diplomatic mission or representatives in Lebanon are hit by the regime.

The warning, issued by General Abolfazl Shekarchi, spokesman for the Iranian Armed Forces, follows an ultimatum from the Israeli war machine demanding that Iranian representatives leave Lebanon immediately within 24 hours.

In a statement, General Shekarchi addressed recent Israeli threats against the Iranian embassy in Lebanon. “Until now, out of respect for the countries of the world, despite our capabilities, we have not taken action against Israeli embassies around the world,” General Shekarchi stated.

However, he warned that any strike on Iranian diplomatic soil would result in a total shift in that policy.

“Should Israel commit such a crime, we will be forced to treat everyone of their embassies across the globe as a legitimate target.

This will certainly be carried out, as Iran is determined to bring Israel and the United States to their knees.”

The threats came against the backdrop of U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran, which began on Saturday with airstrikes assassinating Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. The following strikes have killed over 1,000 people and damaged civilian infrastructure.

In the meantime, Israeli airstrikes across Lebanon have intensified, killing at least 50 people and injuring 350 in the last 48 hours alone.

The Lebanese group Hezbollah has launched waves of attacks on Israeli military sites, citing both the defense of Lebanon and the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei.

Iran has launched massive waves of drone and missile attacks at the Israeli-occupied territories and US assets across West Asia.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Comments Off on Iran warns all Israeli embassies ‘legitimate targets’ if Lebanon embassy attacked

Veteran War Correspondent Reveals How to Tell When Analysts Talking About Iranian Losses Are Lying

Sputnik – 04.03.2026

“In every war, destroying a launcher is a very popular claim because it implies that the Israelis have reduced future attacks. This is a domestic and international message that ‘we have achieved the main objectives of the military campaign’,” says Elijah Magnier, a prolific journalist and war reporter covering Middle East conflicts since the 80s.

“But the standard of evidence it’s another matter,” the veteran observer told Sputnik.

“What is credible is before and after imagery. So showing an identifiable launcher vehicle, and they have to be authentic, not a decoy. And then geolocated strike footage, with clear launcher signature, and [a] pattern of fire decline consistent with launcher attrition,” Magnier explained.

“The Americans and the Israelis can claim that they’ve hit a ‘suspected’ launch site and they’ve used this term a lot, which means there is no proof of a launcher present, or there are strikes on empty pads or decoy equipment,” Magnier stressed.

Pointing to the intensity of Iran’s counterstrikes in the first days of the conflict, and its adoption of the strategy learned during the June 2025 war that enemy defenses start running out of interceptors after a few days of intense fire, Magnier says the real measurable sign of whether enemy attacks are degrading Iran’s capabilities will be whether its missiles continue firing after ten days or more.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Veteran War Correspondent Reveals How to Tell When Analysts Talking About Iranian Losses Are Lying

Trump’s Iran war will put him in the history books, but…

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 4, 2026

Did Marco Rubio just admit that Israel dragged the U.S. into the war with the first strike? The whole world is just waking up and realizing that the war is based on no strategy whatsoever. How very Trump.

Churchill’s comment about history being kind to him, because it will be him (Churchill) who will write it, isn’t going to apply to Donald Trump, who is the first U.S. president to succumb to Israel goading America into a war with Iran.

Things aren’t going very well for Israel and the U.S. in the war with Iran. Even though Iran is pounded by missiles daily, it would seem that no real effect has been felt on its military infrastructure which, itself, continues to have significant success against its enemy. While the GCC countries quickly run out of U.S. air defence missiles, many of their citizens are waking up to a new reality: that many of the missiles and bombs exploding are, in fact, not even coming from Iran but have been placed by Mossad agents whose objective is to drag these countries into the war. Despite days passing now and rumours of this happening on social media, it is unlikely this will happen, though, as those leaders are afraid that Iran’s main ace – an obliteration of the oil infrastructure – has yet to be played, which would wipe out those countries’ economies within hours. And yet there is some cruel poetic justice being played out here, as those same GCC countries went to great lengths before the war kicked off to underline their lack of support, on a practical level, for Israel and the U.S. It has transpired that at least one leader, Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, did at least goad the U.S. on to go ahead with the attack. The Iranians didn’t need to read this in the British broadsheet Daily Telegraph, as their own intelligence probably tipped them off about such a discussion, but it is hardly surprising now that they still consider the GCC countries as potential enemies and retain the threat of destroying their oil fields.

The problem for Trump is not Marco Rubio admitting that it was Israel that went ahead with the Iran strikes, therefore being the one who made the decision to start the war, which makes Trump look ineffective and a junior partner in the bigger plan; it’s not even that Rubio’s comments about needing to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability make Trump’s earlier bombing fiasco in June of last year look ridiculous and present the U.S. president as a liar and a fraud. The real problem for Trump is not even the constant, repetitive nature of a chaotic communications strategy where someone like Rubio seems to be working from a different set of messages.

Trump’s real problem is two-fold. One, he is not in command, but Bibi is. And two, even if he was in command or had some influence over the outcome or the methodology, he doesn’t have a strategy. For Israel, having no strategy is not a problem, as American lives are ten a dime for the Zionists. All Bibi wants to do is to go to war with Iran, with or without a strategy, and use American money and lives in the process. The foaming-at-the-mouth zeal of these Zionists overrides reason and rationale, and by the time everyone realizes this, it’s too late. Yes, Israel showed great capability on the battlefield twice in ’67 and ’73, but that was in a regional war with only Egypt and Syria to contend with. Iran is a different case altogether, and the plain truth is that Mossad’s impressive intelligence gathering, which tracks individuals and located Iran’s leader at his home compound, has not been put to good use to work out the realities of how long the country can sustain bombing. Israel and the U.S. have seriously underestimated Iran’s military capability and overestimated their own. The fact that the U.S. is already taking THAAD and Patriot missile systems from South Korea and shipping them to the region is an indication that despite Trump talking of weeks, in reality the truth is that he was probably told by Bibi that it would all be over in a couple of days. America’s own bases in the Middle East have also proved to be woefully under-protected, and the anger by local people in many of these GCC countries that they have been left so vulnerable and that they are often victims when those bases are struck is boiling over now and giving elites there a new problem to contend with, as a political uprising is now a reality.

It would seem almost all of the planning was ill-advised in the first place and based on wishful thinking and ignorance. The greatest example of this is the assassination of the Supreme Leader. The Israelis no doubt told Trump that this would be a critical factor in the regime collapsing, but they couldn’t have been more wrong. It has galvanized support even more behind the regime to fight this war once and for all and to reset history. Iranians are tired of being a convenient enemy for successive U.S. presidents and the Zionists who don’t even follow their own script on why they want to go to war with Tehran in the first place. Of all of Trump’s blunderings in his second term, this one will be remembered for generations to come. The worry, of course, is that the same miscalculation will be mulled over for the nuclear option, probably by the Israelis first, when they see that slowly but surely Israel is being erased from the map. The astonishing takeaway from the last few days, though, is not the buffoonery of Trump but the sombre strategizing by Iran and in how much it holds back.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s Iran war will put him in the history books, but…

The murder of Iranian schoolchildren cannot be whitewashed

By Eva Bartlett | RT | March 4, 2026

In Iran, under ongoing US-Israeli attacks, a mass funeral took place today for 168 Iranian schoolgirls aged 7-12, killed by an Israeli airstrike on February 28.

The strike hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ primary school in Minab, southern Iran, in broad daylight, when the children were at school. Fourteen teachers were also killed in the bombing. The bombing occurred as part of US-Israeli attacks sadistically dubbed ‘Operation Epic Fury’, attacks which have to date targeted schools, hospitals, residential areas and other civilian infrastructure.

It was a scene all too familiar to Palestinians: grief-stricken parents collapsing sobbing at the site of their daughters’ murders, clutching bloodstained backpacks, pulling out schoolbooks and personal items of their slain daughters. Children’s desks covered in debris from the bombing. A child’s shoe in the rubble. Death where life had flourished.

None of this is being conveyed by Western legacy media – only ghoulish gloating over the US-Israeli bombardment of Iran and the murder of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and his young granddaughter and children.

On March 2, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted a photo of the graves being dug on X, noting, “These are graves being dug for more than 160 innocent young girls who were killed in the US-Israeli bombing of a primary school. Their bodies were torn to shreds. This is how “rescue” promised by Mr. Trump looks in reality. From Gaza to Minab, innocents murdered in cold blood.”

At the time of this writing, 69 of the murdered girls remain unidentified.

International reaction: Silence

If the bombed school had been in Israel or Ukraine, news of it would have been plastered on front pages of Western media for days, with widespread demands for retaliation, or at least for justice and accountability. Back in 2016, Western media alleged Syria or Russian planes had injured Aleppo boy Omran Daqneesh. His photo went viral, for weeks, even years. A CNN news anchor fake-sobbed for the boy. In 2017, in his home, his father told me their home was not hit in an airstrike, but rather terrorists shelled it and used the boy in a cynical, and effective, photo op.

Footage shared on Telegram and on X clearly show horrific scenes of some of the young girls torn apart in the US-Israeli bombing of their school. But just like the untold thousands of Palestinian children killed by Israel, as well as the half a million Iraqi children killed by US sanctions, these Iranian children’s lives don’t merit Western media outrage.  Instead, they produce cynical reports that not only lack any semblance of empathy, but suggest that Iran is either lying about or is to blame for the murders.

Take the BBC’s report, which describes the massacre as a “reported” strike on a school, which “Iran has blamed the US and Israel” for. Casting doubt is standard for legacy media whitewashing the US and Israel’s crimes. The US is “looking into reports.” Israel is “not aware.” Just one of those mysterious unknown strikes.

The BBC then overtly blamed the Iranian government as untrustworthy, writing, “Deep mistrust of the Iranian regime, however, makes official reports difficult for many to accept, and some Iranians directly blamed the regime for the attack.”

The BBC did similarly dishonest and deceptive journalism in 2014 in Damascus after terrorists in eastern Ghouta had shelled an elementary school, killing one child and injuring over 60. The BBC later reported: “the government is also accused of launching [mortar strikes] into neighborhoods under its control.” The BBC could have easily learned about the trajectory of mortars and from where the strike in question could only have come: the terrorist “moderates” east of Damascus.

The New York Times also got the memo, likewise omitting Israel from the headline and implying Iran is lying. But when it comes to blaming Iran for its retaliation, the NYT has no problem stating whose missile strike it was. And there is no “Israel says.”

CNN ran the headline “A girls’ elementary school was hit in Iran. Here’s what we know.” Its video report not only doesn’t mention the US or Israel, but insinuates Iranian blame: In an Israel-like tactic (recall Israel’s claiming  Gaza’s Shifa hospital was a “Hamas base”, and staging weapons as “proof”), CNN claims the children’s school could be connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) base. But The Cradle noted that the school had operated independently as a civilian institution for over a decade, with separate entrances, playgrounds, and classrooms.

CNN’s report did, at least, debunk online claims that the school was hit by a failed missile launch by Iran, noting the photo shared online as “proof” of the claim was actually taken 800 miles from Minab. But, hello? If it wasn’t a failed Iranian missile there is clearly one remaining explanation: the schoolgirls were killed by US-Israeli bombing.

Most Western media cite The US military’s Central Command (Centcom) as saying it was “looking into reports of the incident,” and the Israeli army as saying it was “not aware of any IDF operations in the area.” Ah yes, the guilty shall investigate themselves. Right.

Even if you set aside the actual culprit of the school bombing, legacy media reports are devoid of any concern for the slaughtered children: no details, no empathy, no mention that they were murdered in the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The tone would be radically different were the children Israeli, Ukrainian or American. We would see names, ages, stories about them. They would be humanized – if only they were not Iranian (or Palestinian, or Lebanese, or Syrian).

Since the February 28 Minab school massacre, US-Israeli strikes have attacked still more civilian infrastructure, killing and injuring more Iranian civilians.

One man recounted to RT how after the bombing of central Tehran’s Enghelab Square he’d seen a decapitated person in front of his café. Walking around showing the destruction, RT’s Tehran bureau chief Hami Hamedi pointed out residential buildings, cars, shops, damaged and destroyed in recent bombings where a police station was among those targeted.

This was the same tactic which Israel used on December 27, 2008, when it unleashed over 100 bombs nearly simultaneously on Gaza, targeting police stations, police academies, universities and more, destroying and damaging shops and residential buildings around them.

I was in Gaza at the time and saw the immediate aftermath of the initial bombings, the chaos and destruction in every direction. Shifa hospital, Gaza’s main hospital, was an endless circuit of cars and ambulances bringing the dead and injured.

That was 17 years ago, and Israel has repeated this brutal tactic over and over again in Gaza, Lebanon and now Iran. We’ve seen this US-Israeli strategy of terrorizing the people by widely attacking civilian infrastructure repeatedly in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, to list only some of the targeted regions – as well as being replicated by the Kiev regime in the Donbass. The intent is always destabilization and instigation of fear in hopes of causing the people to turn against their government. It never works, but it invariably kills countless innocent civilians and flattens infrastructure.

To add further insult, days after the girls’ school massacre, Melania Trump presided over a UN Security Council meeting on children in conflict. You can’t make this insanity up. The wife of a US president who is co-waging a war on children in Iran feigns concern over children in conflict.

The US and its bought media have so little regard for Iranian lives that they don’t even bother to try to explain, much less apologize for, the murders of the 168 schoolgirls. Outrageously, it is as if they simply never existed to Western media.

But it is true that every war crime, every murdered child, fuels support not only to their government but to resistance in general. And Iran is resisting and retaliating in ways that will make the US wish it hadn’t co-started this war on the people of Iran.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years).

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Comments Off on The murder of Iranian schoolchildren cannot be whitewashed

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »