The General who swallowed his truth
By Jasim Al-Azzawi | MEMO | March 5, 2026
General Dan Cain, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered a private warning to President Trump with the bluntness that democracies depend upon and empires routinely ignore: “We don’t have enough ammunition to win this war. It would not be pretty.” This was not timidity. This was the solitary act of institutional honesty still flickering inside the corridors of American military power.
Trump’s response was the response of a carnival barker, not a commander-in-chief. On Truth Social — that funhouse mirror of American political life — he swatted away the warning with a salesman’s swagger: “Oh no, no, no. If we do it, it will be easily won.” A sober assessment became a sales pitch. A caution became a lie.
But the greater lie came next. When Cain’s warning leaked, Trump did not merely dismiss it. He inverted it. He told the American public, with the breezy confidence of a man who has never been held accountable for anything, that the general had said the opposite — that the United States had plenty of missiles, plenty of munitions, plenty of everything. “That’s not what he said at all,” Trump declared. He put triumphalist words in the mouth of a man who had spoken warnings.
And General Cain said nothing.
That silence is not a footnote in this story. It is the story. By staying quiet, Cain allowed the American public to absorb a fabrication as truth. He did not say: “No, Mr. President, that is not what I said.” He did not invoke the oath he swore, or the soldiers who would pay with their lives for the gap between political rhetoric and logistical reality. He chose the safety of silence over the danger of truth. In doing so, he did not merely fail himself. He failed the republic.
This is the rot at the core of American militarism.
As the historian Andrew Bacevich has long warned, the professional military has become less a defender of democratic values than a tool of imperial ambition, its senior officers more attentive to their next posting than to the Constitution they swore to uphold.
Cain’s silence was not an aberration. It was a symptom.
The logistics picture Cain reportedly described in private is not theoretical. The math is unforgiving. Current inventories of interceptors and precision munitions cannot sustain a prolonged air campaign against a nation three times the size of Iraq. The Wall Street Journal has documented an “alarming gap” in US missile stockpiles, reporting that reserves “fell significantly short” of requirements for high-intensity, sustained operations. Pentagon contractors have been instructed to “double or even quadruple” production of Patriot interceptors, SM-6s, and precision strike missiles — a tacit admission that the arsenal built for Cold War scenarios is inadequate for the war being prosecuted today.
Consider Gaza. Israel, the most lavishly armed military power in the Middle East, with complete air and sea dominance, has reduced a tiny coastal strip to a moonscape desolation over two and a half years, and still has not broken Hamas. Gaza is thirty-seven kilometres long.
Iran is a nation of ninety million people, mountainous, strategically deep, with hardened infrastructure and a battle-tested Revolutionary Guard. The idea that it collapses under a few weeks of American airstrikes is not a strategy. It is fantasy dressed up as resolve.
“God help us if this continues, if it even reaches its fourth week,” Colonel Daniel Davis warned on the Deep Dive podcast. He was speaking militarily. The same prayer applies politically.
When Trump now floats the prospect of ground troops, he is not escalating from a position of strength. He is improvising from a position of denial. The admission that airpower and missiles alone cannot achieve the political objective is the admission that the original objective was never honestly assessed. This is the pattern of American war-making at the end of empire: grandiose promises, catastrophic miscalculations, and then the slow, terrible reckoning paid in blood by those who never had a seat at the table where the lies were told.
The costs are already accumulating — not merely in the currency of munitions and treasure, but in the currency that empire always spends last and regrets most: credibility. America’s word, already devalued by two decades of manufactured justifications for war, grows cheaper by the day.
Democracies can endure miscalculation. They can endure bad presidents. What they cannot long endure is the institutionalization of a culture in which truth is spoken in whispers behind closed doors and swallowed whole in front of cameras. When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs permits his own words to be weaponized as propaganda — when the man charged with counting the missiles will not correct the president who pretends there are plenty — something more than military credibility collapses.
What collapses is the social compact between the governed and those who send them to die.
Cain’s silence was not caution. It was complicity. And in the machinery of empire running low on ammunition and low on honesty, complicity is the one resource that never seems to run short.
Because when the missiles finally run out, slogans will not replace them.
Reality will.
Donald Trump Was Installed in Office to Do One Thing
José Niño Unfiltered | March 5, 2026
Long before Donald Trump descended the golden escalator, long before he learned to tell campaign crowds what they wanted to hear about ending endless wars and bringing the troops home, he told the world exactly what he intended to do about Iran. He wrote it down. He published it. And almost nobody bothered to read it.
In his 2011 book Time to Get Tough, Trump laid out his position on Iran’s nuclear program with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. “America’s primary goal with Iran must be to destroy its nuclear ambitions,” Trump wrote. “Let me put them as plainly as I know how. Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped by any and all means necessary. Period. We cannot allow this radical regime to acquire a nuclear weapon that they will either use or hand off to terrorists.”
By any and all means necessary. Those six words should have settled every subsequent debate about Trump’s foreign policy instincts toward Iran. They were not the words of a non-interventionist. They were not the words of a man who believed in restraint, in diplomacy, or in the sovereign right of nations to manage their own affairs without American interference. They were the words of a man who had already decided, more than a decade before he ordered B-2 bombers over Fordow, that Iran’s nuclear program would be destroyed on his watch. Everything that followed was execution.
Tearing Up the Deal
Trump repeatedly condemned the Iran nuclear deal throughout his 2016 campaign, calling it “the worst deal ever” that would lead to “a nuclear holocaust.” Though he occasionally struck a peaceful tone with select audiences, his actual policy toward Iran was one of consistent escalation from the moment he took office. The International Atomic Energy Agency had certified Iran’s compliance with the agreement on at least ten occasions. Trump’s own administration certified Iranian compliance in April and July 2017. None of it mattered at the end of the day.
On May 8, 2018, Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and launched what his administration called the “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign. A White House statement announced that the administration would “immediately begin the process of re-imposing sanctions” targeting “critical sectors of Iran’s economy, such as its energy, petrochemical, and financial sectors.” Trump also warned of “severe consequences” for any country that continued doing business with Tehran.
Maximum Pressure, Minimum Restraint
The sanctions that followed ranked among the most severe in modern American history. The White House stated explicitly that the campaign was “intended to bring Iran’s oil exports to zero, denying the regime its principal source of revenue.” The Trump administration steadily widened the scope of the economic siege, targeting Iran’s central bank, space agency, and shipping industry. In June 2019, Trump signed an executive order imposing sanctions on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei personally, his office, and those closely affiliated with his access to key financial resources. In July 2019, the Treasury sanctioned Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. By November 2019, the administration had targeted Khamenei’s inner circle of advisers, including his son Mojtaba and the head of Iran’s judiciary.
Between 2018 and 2021, the Trump administration imposed more than 1,500 sanctions designations on Iran and on foreign companies or individuals who did business with Tehran. According to the International Crisis Group, the campaign targeted more than 80 percent of Iran’s economy.
Branding Another Country’s Military a Terrorist Organization
In April 2019, Trump took a step that no previous American president had ever contemplated. He designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, the first time in American history that any branch of a foreign government’s military had received that label.
At the time, Trump bragged about the move in a White House statement that read like a victory lap. “If you are doing business with the IRGC, you will be bankrolling terrorism,” Trump declared. “This designation will be the first time that the United States has ever named a part of another government as an FTO.” He called it an “unprecedented step” and boasted that it would “significantly expand the scope and scale of our maximum pressure on the Iranian regime.”
The timing was notable. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced national elections the following day. The Soufan Center assessed that the designation appeared designed in part to bolster Netanyahu’s electoral chances. Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif called it “another misguided election-eve gift to Netanyahu.” The move had little practical effect beyond the sanctions already in place, but it sent an unmistakable signal about whose interests Trump’s Iran policy was designed to serve—world Jewry.
Assassination in Baghdad
The most dramatic escalation of Trump’s first term came on January 3, 2020, when he authorized a drone strike near the Baghdad International Airport that killed Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force, along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iran-backed militias in Iraq, and several others.
Trump addressed the nation from Mar-a-Lago the following day. “Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him,” Trump declared. The claim of an imminent threat became the administration’s central justification. However, reporting from Pepe Escobar found that Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission with Iraqi paramilitary leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.
But the story began to unravel almost immediately. The Trump administration shifted its justifications repeatedly over the following weeks. First Trump said Soleimani was plotting to attack the Baghdad embassy. Then he told Fox News it “would have been four embassies.” Then he tweeted that it “doesn’t really matter” whether the threat was imminent. A UN human rights investigator later concluded that the killing was “unlawful” under international law.
Iran retaliated with missile strikes on American bases in Iraq, leaving more than 100 U.S. soldiers with traumatic brain injuries. The world braced for open war. The killing of Soleimani represented the first known instance of a nation invoking self-defense to justify an attack against a state actor on the territory of a third country. It was a line that no previous administration had dared to cross.
The Generals Who Tried to Stop Him
Even after the Soleimani episode, Trump continued to explore military options for striking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. According to The New Yorker, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley spent the final months of Trump’s first term in an alarmed effort to prevent the president from launching a strike on Iranian interests that could ignite a full-scale war.
Trump had a circle of Iran hawks around him and remained close with Netanyahu, who continued to push for military action against Iran even after it became clear that Trump had lost the election. “If you do this, you’re gonna have a f***ing war,” Milley would warn. He began holding daily morning briefings with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, meetings he referred to as the “land the plane” calls. “Both engines are out, the landing gear are stuck, we’re in an emergency situation,” Milley told his staff. “Our job is to land this plane safely and to do a peaceful transfer of power the 20th of January.”
On January 3, 2021, Trump convened one final Oval Office meeting on Iran, asking his advisers about reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s nuclear activities. It was the last time Milley spoke with Trump as president. The generals had managed to prevent the strike, but only barely, and only because the clock ran out.
Finishing What He Started
When Trump returned to office, there were no generals left to stop him. In February 2025, he signed a presidential memorandum reimposing “maximum pressure” and directing his Treasury and State Departments to implement a campaign aimed at “driving Iran’s oil exports to zero.” He sat beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he signed it. He told reporters, “With me, it’s very simple. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump informed senior aides that he had “approved of attack plans for Iran” but was “holding off on giving the final order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program.” The offer was never serious. American military assets, including carrier strike groups, bombers, and fighter jets, were moved into strategic positions across the region.
In June 2025, Trump ordered Operation Midnight Hammer, the first direct American military strike on Iranian soil. B-2 stealth bombers dropped bunker-buster bombs on the Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities, while a submarine launched Tomahawk cruise missiles at Isfahan. Trump declared on Truth Social that the strikes had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites, including the deeply buried Fordow facility. “Nobody thought we’d go after that site, because everybody said, ‘that site is impenetrable,’” Trump boasted to Fox News.
But the intelligence agencies told a different story. A preliminary report from the Defense Intelligence Agency suggested that the strikes inflicted only limited damage, potentially setting back Iran’s nuclear program by months rather than years. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi told CBS News that Iran could resume uranium enrichment “in a matter of months.” “Frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there,” Grossi warned. Iran remained, in his assessment, “a very sophisticated country in terms of nuclear technology.”
Then came February 28, 2026. Operation Epic Fury. The joint American and Israeli assault that killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, decimated the IRGC, and spread the conflict across the entire Persian Gulf. The culmination of everything Trump had promised over the course of 15 years.
Trump’s relentless hostility toward Iran is the predictable culmination of a career built upon deep integration with the most influential elements of American Jewry. These associations provided the capital and connectivity required for his ascent, inevitably shaping his worldview to prioritize their geopolitical ambitions. Consequently, Trump has functioned as the ideal vessel for those who seek to turn Old Testament fantasies into reality through American military might.
This pattern reveals that contemporary populism—and its Zio-populist offshoots across the pond—acts merely as a Trojan horse for Zionist interests. By exploiting rhetoric concerning immigration, race relations, and economic nationalism, these movements successfully capture the loyalty of the disaffected, only to redirect their political energy toward the preservation of Jewish supremacy rather than the survival of the European peoples of the West.
Nationalists must recognize these figures as false prophets and instead prioritize the demographic and civilizational continuity of our own nations through a policy of strict realism abroad and nationalism at home.
Unpacking glaring contradictions in US-Zionist justifications for war against Iran
By David Miller | Press TV | March 5, 2026
While the likes of Trump, Netanyahu, and Rubio peddle inconsistent justifications for the illegal and unprovoked aggression on Iran, CIA intelligence shreds claims of imminent threats, revealing how the Zionist entity dictates US foreign policy.
US President Donald Trump unleashed a barrage of contradictory explanations for the joint US-Zionist assault on the Islamic Republic of Iran, launched on 28 February 2026.
In his initial video statement, Trump asserted the strikes aimed to eliminate “imminent threats” from Iran, including its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles capable of reaching the American homeland.
He painted Iran as a “vicious group of very hard, terrible people” whose actions endangered US interests.
This narrative quickly evolved. By 3 March, Trump admitted the decision stemmed from his “opinion” that Iran would attack first if not struck preemptively.
“It was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” he stated, abandoning earlier claims of concrete intelligence.
Such flip-flops, once again, expose exaggeration. Trump claimed Iran neared intercontinental ballistic missiles threatening the US, an assertion contradicted by US intelligence assessments.
The BBC highlighted how Trump’s “imminent threats” lacked support, noting Iran’s nuclear capabilities remained far from weaponisation despite rhetoric.
Trump’s pre-strike doubts further undermine his case. The Associated Press reported Trump’s dissatisfaction with ongoing nuclear talks, leading to the order despite diplomatic avenues. This pivot from diplomacy to aggression reeks of opportunism, not necessity.
Netanyahu’s decades-long push: ‘Regime change’ at any cost
Zionist entity premier Benjamin Netanyahu has long championed aggression against Iran, viewing it as an existential foe. In justifying the 2026 strikes, Netanyahu declared them pre-emptive to thwart Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, threatening overwhelming force.
He warned that allowing Iran nuclear weapons and ICBMs would endanger humanity.
Netanyahu’s rhetoric echoes his four-decade obsession. Even complicit journalists like Mehdi Hasan noted Netanyahu “has been yearning, dreaming of doing this for 40 years,” with Trump as the first US leader to oblige.
The Guardian labelled the assault an “illegal act of aggression” without a lawful basis, driven by Netanyahu’s preference for military solutions over diplomacy.
Post-strike, Netanyahu celebrated the operation’s goals and called (in Farsi) for Iranians to “come to the streets, come out in your millions, to finish the job, to overthrow the ‘regime’ of fear that has made your lives bitter”. Mondoweiss exposed how initial nuclear justifications morphed into overt regime change admissions, mirroring Iraq War tactics.
“When we are finished, take over your government,” President Trump said, addressing the Iranian public in his own video. “It will be yours to take.”
Yet The Nation revealed aims to turn Iran into a failed state, obliterating coherent governance. Netanyahu dusted off the genocidal language used against the Palestinians, saying on Sunday, 1 March, during a visit to a site struck by an Iranian missile.
“We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember—and we act,” he said.
The Amalekites are identified in the Hebrew Bible as a persistent adversary of the Israelites, linked to a Torah commandment to erase their memory. Specifically, 1 Samuel 15:3 mandates the killing of men, women, and infants. This was a clarion call to eliminate all Iranians, showing the utter hypocrisy of calling out on the streets those he wishes dead.
Rubio’s Freudian slip: Admitting Zionist sway over US decisions
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s comments laid bare the Zionist entity’s influence on US policy. On 2 March, Rubio stated the US struck because “we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” prompting preemptive moves to avoid higher US casualties from Iranian retaliation.
Rubio elaborated that awareness of Zionist plans necessitated US involvement, framing it as defensive. Al Jazeera described this as a “looping justification,” highlighting how Zionist intentions drove US timing.
Facing backlash, Rubio walked back his words, insisting the strikes were inevitable regardless of Zionist actions. The New York Times reported his clarification: “The president determined we were not going to get hit first.”
Axios noted Rubio’s remarks ignited MAGA divisions, underscoring Zionist power. The Guardian highlighted Democratic fury over Rubio’s implication of a “war of choice” on behalf of Zionists. PBS detailed Rubio’s defence, warning Iran of further escalation. These revelations confirm that US policy follows Zionist whims.
CIA intelligence shreds the ‘imminent threat’ facade
CIA assessments dismantle claims of Iranian aggression. The Associated Press revealed that US intelligence showed no pre-emptive Iranian strike planned against the US.
Briefings to Congress confirmed no such indicators. Reuters echoed Pentagon admissions: no intelligence on Iran attacking first. The Hill reported similar findings, contradicting Trump’s “imminent threat.”
A House of Commons Library briefing noted in 2025 that US intelligence judged Iran not to be building nuclear weapons. CNN detailed CIA tracking of Iranian leaders, but no offensive plans. Al Jazeera reported CIA talks with Kurds for uprisings, indicating an offensive US posture. Even the Zionist funded propaganda network Iran International quoted ex-CIA Director Petraeus on Iran’s strategic errors, but no pre-strike aggression.
These reports expose fabricated threats to justify unprovoked war.
Pentagon’s panic: Depleted THAAD stocks and radar losses
Pentagon officials express intense paranoia over dwindling air defense stockpiles as a result of Iran’s legitimate self-defense. The Washington Post reported sources describing the mood as “intense and paranoid.” The Daily Beast characterised these Pentagon officials as “secretly panicking” about THAAD interceptor shortages if fighting drags on.
This panic stems from high consumption rates. It takes two or three interceptors per incoming missile, straining limited THAAD stocks.
Some sources claim that for every $1 Iran spends on drones, countries like the UAE (and by implication the US and the Zionist entity) spend approximately $20 to $28. The Washington Post said officials are warning that resources are “stretched thin.”
Compounding this, the US Navy resists escorting ships through the Strait of Hormuz. USNI News reported Navy officials informing shipping leaders of no availability for escorts, despite Trump’s pledges.
Lloyd’s list detailed this U-turn, with the Navy ruling out protection.
These issues link directly to Iran’s destruction of the AN/FPS-132 radar at Al Udeid base. NDTV reported Iranian claims to have obliterated this $1.1 billion system, crucial for ballistic missile tracking. The radar’s loss weakens early warning, compressing reaction times for THAAD systems.
Army Recognition, a defence industry news site, explained that this reduces sensor depth, forcing more interceptor use and accelerating stock depletion. In fact, they describe it in full as this: “early-warning radar uses a fixed UHF phased-array to detect and continuously track ballistic missiles and space objects at very long range, generating early launch warning, trajectory and impact predictions, and cueing data for layered defenses such as THAAD, Patriot, and naval air-and-missile defense systems across the Gulf”.
So, it affects the whole range of layered air defences.
For Navy escorts, diminished radar coverage heightens risks in Hormuz. Radar losses are key to broader defense cracks, making naval operations precarious without full surveillance.
These problems have only been compounded by the latest strikes, which even the New York Times is admitting have damaged or destroyed Radar and other monitoring and targeting equipment in US bases across the region in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
This chain—radar destruction leading to inefficient defenses and stock drain—fuels Pentagon panic and Navy caution, exposing vulnerabilities in the aggression.
Zionist entity’s grip: How the US became a tool in Iranian aggression
The Zionist colony has long steered US policy toward confrontation with Iran. Al Jazeera probed how Zionist plans precipitated US strikes, with Rubio admitting awareness shaped decisions.
The establishment think tank CFR detailed US intervention following Zionist unilateralism, escalating to full aggression. Mondoweiss argued the war follows an Iraq playbook: false WMD claims shifting to regime change. The Guardian condemned it as illegal, driven by Netanyahu’s impatience with diplomacy.
Euronews quoted Iran’s UN ambassador decrying US betrayal during talks, highlighting Zionist sabotage. Al Mayadeen announced Netanyahu’s declaration of joint aggression. The Nation exposed aims to fragment Iran, with Zionist officials targeting all leadership. WBUR reported Trump’s regime change calls, echoing Zionist goals.
This puppetry endangers global peace, subordinating US interests to messianic Zionist ambitions.
Key contradictions in leadership statements
- Trump’s threat claims vs. intel: Trump warned of missiles soon reaching the US, but even the NYT fact-checks show these are inaccurate.
- Netanyahu’s pre-emption vs. evidence: Netanyahu framed strikes as a gateway to peace, yet Arab News notes endless war denial.
- Rubio’s Zionist trigger vs. walkback: Rubio suggested Israeli plans forced the US hand, later denied.
- Intel on no strike vs. official narratives: AP sources confirm no preemptive Iranian plans.
These inconsistencies fuel scepticism in the American security apparatus as well as – increasingly – with the US allied states in West Asia.
These deceptions are being unmasked in real time. The unthinkable is now dawning on the US and its allies; this may be the moment that the US is pushed out of West Asia once and for all.
Solidarity with Iran at this time demands truth over propaganda and the final push to remove US influence and finally collapse the Zionist colonisation project in Palestine.
David Miller is the producer and co-host of Press TV’s weekly Palestine Declassified show. He was sacked from Bristol University in October 2021 over his Palestine advocacy.
US-Israeli Efforts to Degrade Iran’s Missile Might Failed – Military Researcher
Sputnik – 05.03.2026
The intensity of Iranian missile attacks against the US and Israeli assets in the Middle East does not seem to abate, despite the United States’ claims to the contrary, Konstantin Sivkov, a member of the Russian Academy of Rocket and Artillery Sciences, tells Sputnik.
Despite losing a number of its missile launchers, as is expected during war, Iran has been successfully destroying US radar systems, satellite communication stations and data processing facilities in the region.
“Iran is striking at the target designation system – the brains, the decision making system, the early warning system,” Sivkov remarks.
Iranian missile launchers, he explains, are either deployed under extensive air defense protection or hidden in underground shelters, which they leave briefly to unleash their deadly payload upon the enemy.
The US military thus has a very brief window to track down and attack these launchers while they are in the open.
The active use of decoys by Iran also makes destroying these missile launchers problematic for the US.
Back during the Desert Storm op in 1991, some 70% of the initial US missile salvos launched at Iraq ended up striking decoys, and during the NATO air raids on former Yugoslavia, the number of munitions expended on decoys was even greater, Sivkov points out.
Meanwhile, Iran has the capability to produce new mobile missile launchers to replace the destroyed ones.
The United States’ reluctance to send more aircraft into Iranian airspace further suggests that the US’ claims that Iran’s air defense capabilities have been neutralized are also premature, he suggests, pointing out that the US seems to rely more on long-range missile strikes.
The US’ attempt to sic Kurdish factions on Iran is tantamount to admission that their airstrike campaign did not produce the desired result, Sivkov adds: the initial plan, to cause chaos by murdering the Iranian leadership and to install a puppet regime in the country, clearly failed.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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).
Failing Solidarity: How Cultural Prejudice Shapes Leftist Narratives on the War Against Iran
By Alain Marshal | March 3, 2026
The so-called progressive political and media elites have cynically normalized the assassination of Iran’s leader, dressing up regime change as a moral necessity while denying Iranians the right to self-determination. In doing so, they expose a racist double standard that humanizes Israeli victims, dehumanizes Iranian lives, and buries the very principles of freedom, dignity and international law they claim to defend.

Just imagine the uproar if Iran had killed more than 150 Israeli schoolgirls
The ritual is immutable:
1/ condemn the Iranian “regime” and more or less explicitly welcome the “death” (above all, never say “assassination”) of Khamenei;
2/ having thus provided justification for the US-Israeli war of aggression — the supreme crime according to the Nuremberg Tribunal — and validated the grotesque and abject talking points of the criminals against humanity that Trump and Netanyahu are regarding the alleged “dictatorship of the mullahs,” proclaim, hand on heart, that one does not condone war and artificially dissociate the other victims of these strikes, while affirming solidarity with the Iranian people;
3/ finally and above all, make no reference to the fact that this same people took to the streets by the millions to support their “regime” in January, and are doing so again today, despite the bombs:it is not the real aspirations of the Iranian people that matter — deeply rooted as they are in their own history, values, and spirituality, infusing every aspect of their life with the teachings of Twelver Shia Islam and a deep attachment to the Prophet and his progeny — but rather those that the “civilized West” determines for them, seeking to shape them in its own godless image. Colonial mentality obliges — the same mentality that led Jules Ferry to declare that “the superior races have the duty to civilize the inferior ones.”
It is absolutely sickening to see that more than two years of genocide in Gaza have done nothing to change the crass ignorance, steeped in racism and Islamophobia, of our so-called progressive Left, whose hyperbolic reaction of solidarity we witnessed when it came to the 40 Israeli babies “beheaded” — existing solely in the putrid imagination of propagandists. In France, even La France Insoumise (LFI, main leftist party headed by Jean-Luc Mélenchon), which had managed to distance itself from the inept and complicit “neither-Maduro-nor-Trump” discourse on Venezuela, is now revelling in the war crime constituted by the assassination of a foreign leader, servilely described by Mélenchon as “the executioner of his people,” parroting US-Zionist propaganda and dismissing the millions of Iranians who hold him in reverence and regard him as their political and spiritual leader. Let us therefore listen to Mélenchon, the “Tribune of the plebs”:
“This is the first time there has been a war with no good guys. This is the first time there has been a war with only people we don’t like, I mean governments we don’t like. The government of Iran inspires no sympathy in me: for my part, I have opposed it from the very beginning. When its leader Ali Khamenei dies, I am obliged to say that I feel no sadness.
Mélenchon then claims that just as Nazism was a form of supremacism, the governments of Trump, Netanyahu and Khamenei are each in their own way supremacist powers competing for domination — going so far as to suggest that Khamenei proclaims Iran’s “superiority within Islam and over the Middle East,” an absurd characterization that serves only to justify equating aggressors with the attacked. He concludes: “Neither Shah nor Mullahs.”
No sadness, then, for Khamenei, nor for his wife, nor for his daughter, nor for his son-in-law, nor for his 14-month-old granddaughter, murdered alongside him — except insofar as one adopts the Israeli logic whereby, in order to assassinate one person, dozens or even hundreds are killed with him, invoking “collateral damage,” or even consigning them to oblivion by denying their very existence.
No sadness either for international law, the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the fundamental norms governing relations between States, global peace and stability. Nor for the more than 100 million Iranians and Shiite Muslims throughout the world (including in France and in the other European and Western countries) who mourn the loss of their Guide — whose popularity is questioned only by the ignorant and the ideologues, as for his followers, he is more than the Pope is to Catholics — because they do not embrace the model of society promoted by Mélenchon, who opposes the Islamic Republic on principle, even were it massively supported by the Iranian people, simply because the very principle of a theocracy repels him.
Iran must be regime-changed, even if that means sending it back to the Stone Age, like Syria and Libya, destroying all its incredible accomplishments since 1979 in fields such as healthcare, education, and the sciences — achievements made despite crippling sanctions and persistent external pressures, just like Cuba, from dramatic improvements in life expectancy to the expansion of medical and higher education, rapid growth in research output and scientific innovation, and self-sufficiency in pharmaceutical and high-tech sectors. Iranian women are 70% of Iran’s STEM graduates (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), but one must guess they are not “free” until they wear miniskirts. Such blindness and the outright denial of the right to political and cultural self-determination are outrageous.

“I feel no sadness”
Although Western tradition humanizes only Israeli victims, deemed alone worthy of compassion, let us defy convention and give a name and a face to the martyrs: above, Zahra Mohammadi Golpayegani, 14 months old, Khamenei’s granddaughter, murdered with her family. No sadness, really? And below, several faces of the victims of the strike on a girls’ primary school — how abominable single-gender education must seem in your eyes — whose wearing of the veil, which Mélenchon once described as a “rag on the head,” may perhaps shock you.
Mélenchon, whose condemnations and impassioned outbursts after October 7 are well remembered — when the Palestinian Resistance had merely exercised its right to struggle against occupation (and Israel responded with the Hannibal doctrine and genocide) — would he dare to say “I feel no sadness” if Trump or Netanyahu had been killed along with their wife, children, and grandchildren, without provocation, triggering a regional war that could quickly becomeWorld War III? Never in a million years. He would have condemned the very act of international terrorism constituted by the aggression and assassination of a foreign leader, evoked all its potentially cataclysmic ramifications, and explicitly mentioned the victims. But when it comes to Iran, none of this matters. Iranian and Israeli lives are not equal in the eyes of the “supremacists,” whether ethnic, political, or civilizational — are they, Mr. Mélenchon?
As for Mediapart, long regarded as one of France’s leading left-leaning media outlets, it no longer even bothers to conceal its Atlanticist and Zionist allegiances, openly embracing them. It congratulated Israel on the “tactical stroke of genius” represented by the mass terrorist beeper attack against Lebanon (later discreetly revising the description to a “strategic success” once it recognized that the original wording was apologetic), and is now explicitly turning the victim into the culprit, daring to claim that Iran had it coming because it refused to “capitulate on its foundations,” namely its defense capabilities (nuclear weapons being nothing more than a crude pretext), and refused to allow itself to be carved up (see the surreal article Rather than Capitulate on Its Foundations, the Iranian Regime Prefers to Endure War, torn to pieces by the comments of Mediapart subscribers themselves, who are increasingly turning their backs on this vile NATO bootlicking). France remains, without a doubt, the daughter of Jules Ferry the colonialist and Pétain the collaborationist.
If our grandees truly cared about international law, the rights of peoples, and global peace and security, the assassination of Khamenei would be unanimously condemned with horror and indignation, both in itself and for the cataclysmic consequences it could entail, from a global economic crisis to a third world war. If “human animals” possessed as much dignity as Western and Israeli lives in the eyes of our self-proclaimed “feminists,” the Iranian schoolgirls targeted by Israel would make every front page — and draw condemnations dwarfing those provoked by the fake story of 40 decapitated babies. Instead of ludicrous accusations of expansionism or imperialism toward Iran, we would be reminded at every second that Israel — the intergalactic champion of killing children and destroying schools and hospitals — dreams of turning the entire Middle East into Gaza, and wants to ensure Trump follows through on “Operation Epstein’s Fury” to the very end.
The great historical tradition of international solidarity, which once led French men and women to risk their lives and endure torture in support of the Algerian FLN, is no more. At best, one can expect the “progressives” and other self-styled “revolutionaries” to place aggressor and victim on the same footing. Far from those who claim neutrality in situations of injustice, and who, as Desmond Tutu said, merely play the game of the oppressor, we affirm our genuine internationalist solidarity with the Islamic Republic of Iran in the face of imperialist and Zionist aggressors, and affirm not only its right to defend itself, but its right to choose its model of society, including that of a “theocracy,” which is only a dirty word for fanatic secularists.
This blog is the result of voluntary work. To support it, you can make a donation.
How Germany became Israel’s enabler-in-chief
By Tarik Cyril | RT | March 3, 2026
Say what you will about Germany’s current ‘elites’, but they are consistent: Once they don’t give a damn about international law, elementary fairness, rudimentary human decency, and, last but not least, basic logic, they really won’t quit before their country’s reputation is ruined as it has not been since 1945. Hyperbole, you think? Can it really be that bad, you wonder?
Leave it to Chancellor Friedrich Merz and company to achieve what seems almost impossible. For almost two-and-a-half years, not one but two German governments have been, in effect, complicit in Israel’s continuing Gaza genocide. Under former Chancellor Olaf Scholz from the centrist Social-Democrats – otherwise remembered for gutless evasion when US ex-president Joe Biden announced, in essence, that he was going to blow up Nord Stream – as well as under the unusually dishonest Merz from the centrist Christian-Democrats, Berlin has supplied Israel with arms (and probably misled the International Court of Justice about it), diplomatic cover, legal support, media propaganda, and the often brutal suppression of protests against Israel’s crimes.
Indeed, recently a UN special rapporteur has identified the “use of anti-terrorism laws to restrict advocacy for Palestinian rights” as “a primary concern” in a report warning that the “space for freedom of expression is shrinking” in Germany.
Against this awful and shameful background, the fresh war of aggression launched by Israel and its American auxiliaries – that’s the technically correct term for troops serving a foreign nation – could, conceivably, have been a very late wake-up call. Perhaps, an eternal optimist may have thought, the sheer brazenness of the attack will make even Berlin hesitate. Nope. Instead, Friedrich Merz and official Germany in general have radicalized their virtually nihilistic denial of law, ordinary ethics, and common sense.
One day after the beginning of the Israeli-American war of aggression, Merz took the lead and set the tone by going public with a perverse misreading of the situation. Starting by labeling the heinous assault – launched, according to US and Israeli custom, under the cover of ongoing negotiations – “massive military strikes,” Merz acknowledged that they had killed members of the Iranian government (which he, of course, caricatured as a “Mullah” and “terror regime”) including “the religious leader” Ayatollah Khamenei. If you expected the slightest sign of disapproval or even just discomfort at these cold-blooded murders of high government officials, you don’t know Friedrich Merz yet.
Instead the German chancellor – or in his terms, perhaps, ‘vassal regime’ leader? – highlighted the need to help German tourists stranded in the warzone and to protect public order in Germany by preventing “antisemitic and anti-American attacks.” Translation from Berlin officialese: by ramping up suppression of all and any criticism of Israel and America.
Then, after a catalogue of Israeli and American propaganda talking points against Iran – nuclear this, ballistic that… you know the drill – reproduced with the earnest assiduity of an eager pet pupil, Merz went on to assure “many Iranians” that his Berlin regime shared their relief at, in effect, being properly bombed, again.
In general, the chancellor’s speech was a textbook example of perpetrator-victim inversion. Clearly approving of the Israeli-American assault, Merz had the chutzpah to sternly demand that Tehran must “at once” stop its “indiscriminate attacks.” Those, of course, do not, actually, exist. Because Iran is acting in clear and obvious self-defense – the only legitimate reason, apart from a UN mandate, for resorting to military force – and, as before, its counter-strikes at those attacking it are still remarkably selective and restrained.
To be fair even to Merz, at least, he was a little less disingenuous than usual. He frankly, if in stilted language, admitted that he could not care less about international law. Friedrich, to be honest, we have always known that much about you – despite your hypocritical invocation of “rules” and “values” whenever you feel like going after Russia again – but it’s nice you’re coming out so openly now.
But Merz got back to his usual, absurdly devious self very quickly. Because, you see, it’s Iran that is to blame when Friedrich Merz treats international law as utterly dispensable. At least according to Friedrich Merz, who explained that all those beautifully law-based measures taken regarding and, really, against Iran before this fresh war, did not work. Oh, Tehran, really how uncouth of you! Neither devastating sanctions, nor the US cancelling the JCPOA agreement, nor ongoing assassination and subversion campaigns waged by Israel and its friends, nor last year’s ‘12-day’ war of aggression made you submit.
For, clearly, according to Berlin logic, these must be those international-law based operations Merz was referring to. Make it make sense. Now, in his defense, for a man who sees no problem with his US and Polish ‘allies’ and Ukrainian dependents blowing up Germany’s vital infrastructure, the Iranian insistence on not being bullied and defending national sovereignty must be truly incomprehensible. So maybe, Merz isn’t really morally and legally perverse but just a tad out of his very shallow depth.
By the way, Merz’s justifying a war of aggression by Iran not having bent the knee even after decades of “comprehensive sanctions packages” is likely to be noted with great interest in Moscow: If that’s how German elites see the world now – first we sanction you and then, if you still don’t knuckle under, we have a de facto right to attack you – the Russian leadership is certain to draw the obvious conclusions. Again, Merz probably didn’t even understand the insanely destabilizing implications of what he was saying. But they are there, nonetheless.
In short, Merz’s address was stunningly absurd and a horrific moral and intellectual failure, a disgrace for his country. It should be noted, however, that polls show that this atrocious line of unconditional compliance with both Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocidal apartheid Israel and Donald Trump’s Make-Israel-Greater US is not shared by all Germans. On the contrary, 57% of respondents of a poll are against the attack. Less than a third – 29% – approve of it. Likewise, even in Germany, a preponderant majority – 83% – has finally learned to consider Israel’s actions in Gaza unjustified: In the fall of 2023, when Israel started its genocide, 50% of respondents thought they were justified.
Such polls are nothing to be proud of: German society as a whole is still far too wrongheaded and submissive, when it comes to Israel’s crimes and those of the US, too. But if you know the level of crude media propaganda and relentlessly one-sided indoctrination that Germans are subject to, these numbers still show that for the nation – unlike for its “Atlanticist” elites – there may be some hope.
For now, however, the failure that Merz represents is still in control. He himself has gone to Washington to flatter Donald Trump by praising his latest crime to his face. Netanyahu, meanwhile, may well be in Berlin, in which case German politicians, judges, prosecutors, and police are criminally liable for failing to arrest the war criminal, as the warrant of the International Criminal Court unambiguously requires. Even if his plane parked in Germany is only part of a deception operation, Berlin’s taking part in such a ruse is also morally repulsive and possibly criminal, too.
Germany as a whole has failed the tests of both the Gaza genocide and the wars of aggression against Iran. Its “elites” are a disgrace represented all too well by its chancellor. That is a sad thing to have to state. Yet there is no chance of political and moral renewal without facing this fact. We are back to an old question: What would it take for Berlin to grow a conscience?
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
