Blog

The Misconception That Air Supremacy Has Been Achieved Over Iran

There are growing misconceptions that the U.S. and Israel have achieved total control of the airspace in Iran and sanitized the threat of ground-based air defenses to a degree that their forces have relatively free rein — commonly referred to as air supremacy. This is absolutely not true, nor has this been the outright claim of the U.S. military. It also should be of no surprise at this point in the campaign.

A lot of the commentary I try to provide for events like this is on X. It allows me to respond quickly to what is going on, and often that includes trying to swat down false narratives, some of which originate in the social media echo chamber and among general commentators/influencers, but also increasingly among the mainstream media. This is one of those times.

Moving as fast as possible from standoff attacks to stand-in (direct) attacks isn’t just about trying to conserve expensive long-range munitions. In fact, this is far from the primary concern. Doing so is absolutely essential to ramping up the frequency and amplitude of the air campaign. This is something we have been highlighting in our rolling coverage of the conflict for days.

Moving to direct strikes allows for a significant increase in the total volume of targets hit, as well as offering a broader array of effects to be brought to bear on those targets. Very deep-penetrating bunker-buster munitions, for instance, are typically not available in a standoff capability.

This transition to direct attacks has now begun.

Keep reading

Covering for International Abusers, Media Reverse Victim and Offender in Iran

People who study domestic violence have an acronym, DARVO, for the set of tactics abusers use to avoid accountability: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.

It’s that last tactic that came to mind while reading news reports of the United States and Israel’s unprovoked and illegal attack on Iran, and the assassination of Ali Khamenei, its leader. US corporate media frequently presented Iran as responsible for the predictably violent consequences of the US/Israeli aggression.

Sometimes the reversal is straightforward, as when an NBC News “analysis” (2/28/26) warned that “Iran’s Retaliatory Strikes Threaten an Escalation Across the Region”—as though it is Iran’s response, and not the ongoing attacks by the US and Israel, that poses a threat to the region.

Another NBC analysis (2/28/26), by Richard Engel, more subtly tried to pin the blame on Iran, noting in the headline that “Iran Is Now in Conflict With Pretty Much All of Its Neighbors.” Wrote Engel:

Today Iran has launched drones and missiles not only at Israel, but also at US military installations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq…. It puts Iran in a difficult position, because now it is at conflict with pretty much all of its neighbors.

Pretty much all of its neighbors, that is, except for Turkiye, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Azerbaijan said Iranian drones crashed in its territory on Thursday; Iran denies targeting the country.) And if we’re going to count Jordan as Iran’s “neighbor,” then Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan as well. Aside from those, though, pretty much all of them.

The point of depicting Iran as “in conflict” with “pretty much all of its neighbors,” of course, is to paint it as the country that no one can get along with. In reality, the countries Iran isn’t getting along with are the ones allowing the US to use them as platforms for launching bombs and missiles at it—behavior that will put a damper on any relationship.

Keep reading

Florida Legislators Advance a Bill Authorizing Government Surveillance Based on ‘Views’ or ‘Opinions’

A bill that is advancing in the Florida Legislature would authorize government surveillance of people whose “views” or “opinions” are deemed “a threat” to state or national “interests.” What could possibly go wrong?

“This outrageous claim of authority would be a profound betrayal of Americans’ First Amendment rights,” Carolyn Iodice, legislative and policy director at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, warns in a press release. “Imagine being arrested or having your home raided because the government has decided that your opinions are a ‘threat’ or simply don’t align with its interests. This puts everyone’s free speech rights at risk. Even if your views aren’t in the state’s crosshairs today, they could be tomorrow. Free societies do not investigate or arrest their own citizens for their opinions.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida also has “grave concerns” about the bill. It “could easily be used to silence dissenting voices under the guise of security,” ACLU of Florida strategist Abdelilah Skhir told Florida Politics last month. “The vague and overbroad language could easily be weaponized against everyday Floridians engaged in First Amendment protected activity.”

State Rep. Danny Alvarez (R–Riverview), who filed the bill on December 30, does not understand what all the fuss is about. He says he is simply trying to combat threats such as “drug cartels,” “terrorist organizations,” and foreign “intelligence entities.” Last week, the Florida Phoenix reported that “Alvarez said it’s only been in the past week that he’s become aware of First Amendment concerns.”

Alvarez’s bill, H.B. 945, would create a Statewide Counterintelligence and Counterterrorism Unit within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, consisting of “at least seven” 10-member teams. The unit would be charged with “identify[ing] threats by analyzing patterns of life, gathering actionable intelligence, and formulating effective plans of action, and by executing arrests or by revealing its intent to compel a response using all counterintelligence and counterterrorism tradecraft necessary to protect the state from adversary intelligence entities.”

What is an “adversary intelligence entity”? The bill’s definition goes far beyond spies employed by foreign governments. It says the term “includes, but is not limited to, any national, foreign, multinational, friendly, competitor, opponent, adversary, or recognized enemy government or nongovernmental organization, company, business, corporation, consortium, group, agency, cell, terrorist, insurgent, guerrilla entity, or person whose demonstrated actions, views, or opinions are a threat or are inimical to the interests of this state and the United States of America.”

On its face, the bill would empower the Statewide Counterintelligence and Counterterrorism Unit to investigate organizations and individuals based on the “views” or “opinions” they express. Alvarez insists that is not his intent. But by his own account, he did not recognize the obvious First Amendment implications of that broad mandate until a month and a half after he introduced the bill.

When some of his colleagues alerted him to those civil liberties concerns, Alvarez promised to address them. “We are very, very aware of the questions regarding [the] First Amendment,” he told Florida Politics last week. “We’re going to address that in an amendment that comes to the next committee.” He told reporters he was willing to excise the language referring to any “person whose demonstrated actions, views, or opinions are a threat or are inimical to the interests of this state and the United States of America.”

So far, however, the original version of the bill is the only one listed on the Florida Legislature’s website. And despite his avowed willingness to amend the bill, Alvarez does not seem to think it is actually necessary to do so.

Keep reading

In Senate Testimony on DHS Shootings, Kristi Noem Lies About Her Lies

After Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees fatally shot Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti on January 24, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem claimed he was “brandishing” a gun and “attacked those officers.” She also said Pretti “committed an act of domestic terrorism.”

None of that was true, as bystander video immediately showed. But when given the opportunity to correct the record during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Noem instead lied about what she had said. Her obfuscation and dishonesty provoked angry rebukes not only from the Democrats on the committee but also from Sen. Thom Tillis (R–N.C.), who reiterated his recommendation that she resign.

“I did not call [Pretti] a domestic terrorist,” Noem told Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.). “I said it appeared to be an incident of [domestic terrorism].” Noem offered the same revisionist account when Sen. John Kennedy (R–La.) asked her about the “domestic terrorism” label. “In answer to questions at the press conference that afternoon,” she said, “it was that it appeared to be” domestic terrorism.

Here is what Noem actually said on the day of the shooting: “When you perpetuate violence against a government because of ideological reasons and for reasons to resist and perpetuate violence, that is the definition of domestic terrorism. This individual, who came with weapons and ammunition to stop a law enforcement operation of federal law enforcement officers, committed an act of domestic terrorism. That’s the facts.”

Those were not, in fact, the facts. Videos showed that Pretti never “attacked those officers” and never drew his holstered pistol, which he was licensed to carry. The officers did not even notice the gun until after they tackled him, and he had been disarmed by the time the shooting started. Yet Noem did not merely say Pretti “appeared to be” a domestic terrorist, which would have been bad enough; she asserted, flat out, that he was a domestic terrorist.

By contrast, the official DHS statement about the incident hedged a bit. “This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,” it said.

Initial impressions are often wrong, of course, which is why it was reckless to describe Pretti as a would-be mass murderer just a couple of hours after he was shot. That is especially true because the only basis for that characterization was the self-interested account of the same immigration agents whose conduct was at issue.

“We were being relayed information from on the ground from CBP [Customs and Border Protection] agents and officers that were there,” Noem said during a Fox News interview five days after Pretti’s death. “We were using the best information we had at the time.”

Noem reiterated that excuse during Tuesday’s hearing. “We were relying, in the hours after that incident that was so horrific, on information we were getting from the ground from our agents,” she told Klobuchar. “We’re relying on reports from the ground and from agents that are there,” she told Sen. Richard Durbin (D–Ill.). “I was getting reports from the ground from agents at the scene, and I would say that it was a chaotic scene.”

Keep reading

Appallingly shoddy Vietnam War memorial to be torn down after $1million was spent on building it

A $1million memorial dedicated to Vietnam War veterans is set to be torn down just a year after a fraud scandal plagued the community behind the project.

California officials announced the memorial in 2023 as a way to honor Vietnamese soldiers allied with the US during the war. 

The construction began in the upscale Orange County neighborhood, which is also home to the largest Vietnamese population in the US. 

Former Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do spearheaded the project, allocating $1 million in taxpayer funds to the Viet America Society nonprofit. 

It was later revealed that Do was funneling money through the organization for his personal gain, and the disgraced politician was sentenced to five years in prison on conspiracy charges as a result.

Do’s fall from grace left the Vietnam War memorial in shambles, with new leadership appalled by the shoddy construction. 

A county report obtained by the Los Angeles Times found that repairing the unfinished monument would cost between $168,000 and $420,000, with an additional $40,000 to finish engraving the names of fallen soldiers. 

Since demolition would only cost a fraction of that estimate, county officials opted to start the project from scratch. 

Crews arrived at Mile Square Regional Park this week to tear down what remained of Do’s tarnished legacy. 

His successor and former political rival, Janet Nguyen, called the monument a ‘disgrace’ in a statement to the Daily Mail. 

‘The county decided to tear down the wall because we can do better. This memorial is a disgrace to veterans and not the respect they deserve. We have been looking for alternative options, including a space at the new veteran’s cemetery,’ she added. 

Nguyen told California news outlet, KTLA, in November that it was ‘heartbreaking’ to see how veterans were honored.  

The new county supervisor added that the monument was not even accessible to those with disabilities. 

Veterans from Vietnam are now elderly, but the monument was designed in a part of the park without a wheelchair-accessible path. 

‘What was the point?’ Nguyen questioned at a press conference in November. 

‘They … put up these cheap materials that are getting worn down already within not even a year, just so they could launder the rest of the money themselves.’ 

Keep reading

Epstein Army: Jeffrey Epstein helped place 18-year-old woman in ‘elite IDF unit’

Emails show sex trafficking billionaire Jeffrey Epstein worked Israeli connections to help his lawyer’s daughter join an elite IDF unit. The woman, who Epstein wrote would make a “fantastic ambassador for Israel” at Columbia University, served on the board of Hillel International.

Jeffrey Epstein personally recruited an 18-year-old girl from New York to serve “in one of the elite IDF units,” email records show.

Epstein’s request came in a June 29, 2011 email to Anat Barak, the daughter of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. In the message, the financier described the girl in question, “Tali,” as an 18-year-old who’d been accepted to Columbia University’s Barnard College and had “been to Israel more than a dozen times.”

His young female friend had spent a summer hiking the so-called Israel Trail and another “working as a counselor at a summer camp in Dimona Israel for children who are victims of terrorist attacks,” and would therefore “be a great asset to any unit,” Epstein wrote.

Tali, he said, would continue serving Israeli interests long after her placement in the Israeli army. Upon her return from military service in Israel, Epstein wrote that “she would be a fantastic ambassador for Israel” at what he called “one of the more important college campuses in the country, Columbia.”

Keep reading

Arizona Senators Scale Back Bills To Punish Marijuana Users Over Excess Smoke Or Odor Complaints

Arizona senators have dialed back a pair of measures that would penalize people who create “excessive” amounts of marijuana smoke or odor, with members advancing revised versions of the legislation following criticism that, as introduced, they would have added criminalization provisions back into the state’s cannabis use laws.

The latest bill and companion resolution, sponsored by Sen. J.D. Mesnard (R), were amended by the Senate Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, with a floor vote on third reading now imminent. While the bill would on its own enact a statutory policy change, the separate resolution would put the issue before voters to decide.

As the original proposals moved through the legislative process, advocates and certain lawmakers voiced concerns about undermining the will of voters who passed legalization at the ballot, as well as the ambiguity around enforceability and what constitutes “excessive” marijuana smoke.

The legislation was previously amended in committee last month in an attempt to provide a clearer definition of “excessive” smoke and remove a reference to making the offense a “crime.”

The latest revised definition of excessive cannabis smoke or odor describes it as “airborne emissions resulting from the burning, heating or vaporizing of marijuana or marijuana products,” according to a summary of the adopted floor amendment.

Such emissions must also be “detectable by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities on other private property” and “occur for more than 30 consecutive minutes on a single occasion or on three or more separate days within a 30-day period.”

Members further revised the legislation in response to criticism that the committee-passed versions continued to lack clarity and would pose the threat of criminalization by making the offense a class 3 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail, a maximum $500 fine and up to one year of probation.

That, too, was ultimately changed in the bill (SB 1725) and resolution (SCR 1048) that are teed up to advance through the full Senate.

Specifically, the legislation stipulates that “excessive marijuana smoke or odor is a public nuisance if the person’s conduct is intentional or the person knowingly and substantially interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property,” a summary of the amendment says.

The proposals also now specify that “lawful possession or use of marijuana does not preclude a finding of nuisance, except that a court may consider possession of a valid registry identification card as a mitigating factor,” and they provide that “a person is not liable for committing a private nuisance unless the person has received notice of the interference and fails to abate it within five days.”

Under the revised legislation, the affected party would first have to file a compliant with local officials before they pursue action with the state, but only if the municipality has already adopted an ordinance regulating excessive cannabis smoke or odor.

A person would be deemed in violation of the law if a local court has issued a written order directing them to “abate excessive marijuana smoke or odor that constitutes a nuance” and that person “knowingly violates or refuses to comply with the order.”

Each day of non-compliance after failing to adhere to the order would be consider a separate offense, and failure to comply would be a petty offense, rather than a criminal violation.

Keep reading

US Bill Aims To BAN Geoengineering

Last month, Congress introduced legislation that would impose a nationwide ban on geoengineering and atmospheric weather modification, criminalizing activities such as aerosol spraying, cloud seeding, solar radiation management, and other atmospheric interventions designed to alter weather or climate conditions.

The bill, H.R. 7452, titled the Air Quality Act, was introduced February 9 by U.S. Representative Greg Steube (R-FL) and referred to the House Committees on Energy and Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Science, Space, and Technology.

You can find your Representative here and voice your support for the bill.

If enacted, the legislation would prohibit the injection, release, emission, or dispersal of chemical or biological substances into the atmosphere to alter atmospheric behavior, weather, climate, or sunlight intensity, establishing criminal penalties for individuals or organizations involved in such activities.

The bill states: “Whoever… knowingly authorizes or conducts weather modification in the United States shall be subject to the penalties described.”

Violators could face criminal fines of up to $100,000 per violation, imprisonment for up to five years, or both, along with civil penalties of up to $10,000 imposed by federal regulators.

The legislation also specifies that each individual injection, release, emission, or dispersal would constitute a separate violation, potentially multiplying penalties for repeated operations.

Keep reading

They Are Still Lying About Iraq

The lack of shame exhibited by the US government as it lies about Iraqi improvised explosive device (IED) attacks that killed thousands of American service members to justify its new war on Iran is breathtaking. President Trump led off his press conference today, the first since the attacks began Saturday morning, with this lie. Trump’s proxies on cable news, in the newspapers and online have been repeating it non-stop.

The lie is essentially that American soldiers were killed and wounded in Iraq at the orders of the Iranians. That the people responsible for blowing up American vehicles and sending home US soldiers in caskets or without body parts were Iranians, not Iraqis. The reality, of course, is that responsibility for those deaths and mutilations belongs to George W. Bush and every politician, general, government official, journalist, pundit and citizen who supported that war. I put myself into that disgraceful camp as someone who twice went voluntarily to that war.

This lie gets recycled whenever the prospect of war with Iran is present. For example, in 2019, the allegation appeared as the US imposed severe sanctions on Iran and labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization (the first time the US government designated a government or a military as a terrorist organization). These actions, following the unilateral abrogation of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran by the US, led to year-long tensions that culminated in the US assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, who the American government and press labeled as having “American blood on his hands”, and retaliatory Iranian missile attacks on US forces in Iraq.

To begin with, the majority of US service members killed and wounded in the occupation of Iraq were killed by Sunni resistance groups, NOT Shia resistance groups. Sunni groups accounted for more than 80% of American deaths. These Sunni groups did not receive any support from Iran. These Sunni groups, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, did get a great deal of support from persons and institutions throughout Sunni countries in the Middle East, especially from the Gulf monarchies, Saudi Arabia chief among them. Yet, in Washington, DC’s calculus, these states don’t have the blood on their hands that Iran does, even as 4 out of 5 Americans were killed by Iraqi Sunni groups.

Sunni groups did fight against Shia groups that may have had a relationship with Iran. The Shia groups also fought against each other. Some Shia groups fought against the Americans. The Americans killed and wounded by Shia groups using IEDs were killed and wounded by Iraqis, not Iranians. Yes, there was a small Iranian presence in Iraq, acting as advisors to the Shia groups. However, the Iranian role was dwarfed by organic Iraqi resistance to occupation and sectarian commitments to one side or the other in intra-Iraqi fighting.

Keep reading

Congress Is Considering Abolishing Your Right to Be Anonymous Online

In August 2024, the Biden administration hosted hundreds of influencers at the White House for the first-ever Creator Economy Conference. Neera Tanden, a senior Biden adviser, took to the stage and bemoaned anonymity online. The influencers alongside her agreed, pushing the idea that anonymous speech on the internet is harmful, and regulation is needed to force the use of real names on social media. The audience whispered excitedly as those on stage spoke about how proposed laws like the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, could unmask every troll. 

This narrative of online safety, particularly in relation to children, has become central to the bipartisan effort to censor and deanonymize the internet for everyone. Today, a package of a dozen “child online safety” bills is moving forward in the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. The laws, framed as a way to crack down on harmful content and make the internet safer, would force social media companies to enact invasive identity verification measures in order to keep children from accessing online spaces.

The problem is that there’s no way to reliably verify someone’s age without verifying who they are. A platform cannot magically discern that a user is 16 without collecting identifying information, whether through government documents such as a passport, payment information like a credit card, or other identity-disclosing data. Whether that data is stored by the platform itself or outsourced to a vendor, the result is always the same: A user’s offline identity is forever linked with their online behavior.

Stripping anonymity from the internet would constitute one of the most sweeping rollbacks of civil rights in recent history. It would allow for unprecedented levels of mass surveillance and censorship, endangering the most marginalized members of society. Whistleblowers exposing corporate wrongdoing could be tracked and fired, government employees speaking out about illegal behavior or bad policies could face prosecution, and activists organizing protests could be identified and surveilled before ever setting foot on the street.

Keep reading