Tag: iran

Iran Says Persian-Language Media Outlets ‘Funded By CIA’ Are Military Targets

One key tool Washington has long utilized for influence operations and covert regime change plotting abroad has long been the establishment of foreign media for political messaging.

The idea is that a foreign language satellite news channel gets presented as ‘independent’ while in reality it beams propaganda onto a unsuspecting population within a so-called ‘rogue’ state being targeted by the US.

For example, WikiLeaks previously revealed that US intelligence invested heavily in such projects to bolster anti-Assad forces and sentiment in the context of last decade’s proxy war in Syria.

Currently, Iran says it is fully aware of several Persian-language media outlets which are subversive, given they have the backing of the US, UK, or Israeli governments, or others like Saudi Arabia.

The AFP in a Wednesday report has said Iranian state media has newly called out the following as hostile propaganda media fronts:

  • BBC Persian
  • Iran International
  • Radio Farda

An Iranian military spokesman has said these have been added to the armed forces’ “military target bank” – putting the outlets on notice that their offices and infrastructure could come under attack.

“These hostile media outlets are the soldiers of Zionism and America and are included in our military target bank,” military spokesman Abolfazl Shekarchi announced.

He charged that they are “directly connected to Mossad, CIA and enemy intelligence organizations.” He emphasized: “The Iranian Armed Forces do not view these news outlets as media.”

And interestingly, per AFP: “Iran has designated Iran International as a terrorist organization since 2022 and has warned that cooperation with the channel is punishable under Iranian law.”

Earlier in the Iran war, we featured analysis which pointed out that Iran International calls itself the “most popular Persian speaking foreign based news channel in Iran”.It employs 700 people and broadcasts into Iran from London via satellite, radio and social media outlets.

Iran International has been accused by critics of promoting “regime change” in Iran and advancing the position of the former shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, for a return to power. The outlet has long denied links to Israel or Saudi Arabia. The outlet reported heavily on protests that struck Iran at the beginning of this year, sparked by a cost-of-living crisis brought on, in part, by US sanctions.

In January 2025, the news site reported that more than 36,500 people were killed in a crackdown on protests. Those numbers were significantly higher than those estimated by the US and other western-based human rights groups.

US President Donald Trump cited casualty numbers similar to those reported by Iran International days before launching a war on Iran on February 28, but did not disclose where he had gotten the death toll number.

Keep reading

Israeli PM Netanyahu claims Iran tried to assassinate his son

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Iran of trying to assassinate one of his sons.

“This is an unbelievable case. Iran targeted one of my sons. Iran tried to murder him, tried to murder one of my sons,” Netanyahu told Israel’s Channel 14 on Monday, according to the Jerusalem Post.

“Iran tried to murder one of my sons. And this is why this promise [I am making] is more than a luxury – without it, they could succeed [in killing my son]. People need to show some restraint, especially during an election campaign,” Netanyahu said.

The prime minister stated that he had spoken to David Zini, director of the Israeli Security Agency Shin Bet, asking him to increase security for any prime ministerial candidate.

Netanyahu did not clarify during the phone interview which of his sons—35-year-old Yair Netanyahu or 31-year-old Avner Netanyahu—was targeted by the alleged plot, nor did he provide specific details of how Israeli intelligence was made aware of it.

Shin Bet previously extended protective services to Netanyahu’s sons and his wife, Sara Netanyahu, in July.

Netanyahu’s announcement comes after Israel revealed a large store of weapons — including rockets, grenades, drones, sniper rifles, automated weapons, anti-tank rocket launchers, mortars and other military firepower — it has confiscated from Hezbollah and Hamas in recent months. Both Iranian-backed groups have been linked to widespread regional violence and historical attacks that have claimed the lives of hundreds of American and international citizens.

Keep reading

Why Iran Ruffles the Feathers of the United States

Strip away the diplomatic briefings, Congressional hearings and the endless cable news loops about centrifuges, regional proxies and cyber attacks, and you hit a raw unvarnished nerve.

What truly disturbs the United States about the Islamic Republic is not its policies, its rhetoric or even its nuclear ambitions.  It is Iran’s audacity to exist completely outside the American orbit; and make it work.

When diplomatic pretenses are scrapped, we see that a major power does not spend billions of dollars, conduct regional wars and upend global markets out of pure legalistic devotion to global rules or nonproliferation treaties.

The conflict with the United States, is not about what Iran has in its centrifuges.  Rather, it is about what Tehran represents to a hegemon that refuses to accept  “no” and cannot tolerate a world not under its control.

If the mere possession of enriched uranium or atomic warheads was the ultimate redline, the outline of America’s animosities would look entirely different.

The “crossing the nuclear threshold” explanation collapses under the weight of obvious global contradictions.  Washington, for example, has found ways to coexist, cooperate or outright partner with other nuclear-armed nations; from historical accommodations with Pakistan and India, to winking at Israel’s undeclared arsenal, and managing a pragmatic, albeit tense, approach to China and North Korea.

In the vocabulary of global superpowers, compliance is currency.  Washington tolerates fierce enemies if they eventually capitulate; and it accommodates brutal allies if they submit to American domination.  What empire dreads most is an uncooperative self-reliant country that refuses to bend the knee, yet stubbornly survives after decades of total economic siege.

The real reason Iran gets under the skin of the American foreign policy establishment, and why it has become its main target, has little to do with atoms, and everything to do with sovereignty, geography and the architecture of U.S. hegemony.

For decades, the unwritten rule of the post-Cold War order was simple: align with the U.S.-led global order, or be excluded and isolated.  Most nations that initially balked had little choice but to integrate, bound by the weight of a dollar-dominated global economy.   Difficult states were either absorbed or efforts were made to bring them into client-state relationships, or they are heavily monitored.

In 1979, Iran did the unforgivable.  It rebelled and institutionalized a successful, unapologetic ideological revolution that expressly rejected U.S.-Israeli hegemony, and built an enduring political structure explicitly rooted in anti-imperialism and anti-Zionism. It proudly declared that a Middle Eastern state could chart its own destiny outside the Western framework.

Since then, generations of U.S. policymakers have convinced themselves that crushing economic sanctions, diplomatic excommunication, assassinations and covert sabotage would inevitably lead to a popular implosion or “regime” collapse.

Washington’s frustration has only deepened because its strategy has not worked.

Keep reading

Big Oil Is Seeing Windfall Profits as Trump’s War on Iran Drives Up Prices

While the U.S. war on Iran is broadly unpopular in the U.S, including among a growing number of Donald Trump voters, at least one of the president’s core constituencies is happy: Big Oil.

The war’s straining of the global oil supply chain has delivered windfall profits to major fossil fuel corporations. The top two U.S. oil companies, ExxonMobil and Chevron, recently disclosed an astounding $26.5 billion in net income during the second quarter of 2026. Top independent U.S. oil refiners like Marathon, Valero, and Phillips 66 are seeing similar explosions in profits. Globally, a Guardian study found that eight of the world’s top oil companies took in more than $90 billion, or “more than $700,000 of profit every minute over the spring quarter.”

The word “oil company” might evoke generic imagery of rigs and refineries. But behind these entities are executives, board members, and top investors who are primary beneficiaries of Big Oil’s war profiteering and who hold commanding power within a fossil fuel power structure that stretches well beyond oil company boardrooms and into Wall Street and the corporate establishment more widely.

Big Oil’s War Profits

ExxonMobil and Chevron are the two largest U.S. oil corporations, together worth around $1 trillion. They are massive integrated fossil fuel companies whose operations span the entire chain of oil and gas production, and who have a presence across virtually the entire world.

In July, the two oil juggernauts together reported $26.5 billion in net income during the second quarter of 2026 — April through June of this year — as “they cashed in on surging crude and petrol prices caused by Donald Trump’s Iran war,” wrote the Financial Times.

Comparisons with last year provide a metric for measuring these enormous returns. In 2025, ExxonMobil reported second-quarter total earnings of $7.08 billion. In 2026, by comparison, that number leapt to $14.53 billion — more than a 105 percent increase, and “its best quarterly profit since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine caused a surge in oil prices,” according to the Financial Times.

In 2025, Chevron reported second-quarter earnings of $2.49 billion. In 2026, that number skyrocketed nearly four times — 384.7 percent — to $12.07 billion, which is Chevron’s largest quarterly haul ever.

The two corporations’ share prices have also soared compared to last year. On August 10, 2026, ExxonMobil’s share price closed at $159.79 — a 51 percent increase from its closing price of $105.83 on August 11, 2025. Similarly, Chevron’s share price closed at $194.91 on August 10, 2026 — a 27 percent increase from its closing of $153.45 on August 11, 2025.

Keep reading

Why So Many Countries Around the World Quietly Root for Iran

I have been stunned by the number of officials from a wide variety of countries who, while hardly favoring Iran or feeling much empathy for the Islamic Republic, have privately expressed to me a huge sigh of relief over Tehran’s success in thwarting US-Israeli aggression.

Given that many of these officials represent countries squarely in the US camp and have deep problems with the Islamic Republic, this “tacit rooting” for Iran tells us something about the state of global affairs.

There is relief that aggression and violations of international law did not pay off for the US and Israel in Iran, just as they didn’t for Russia in Ukraine. Venezuela was, in the eyes of many, a terrifying case. Regardless of one’s views of Maduro, the idea that a superpower could surgically kidnap the head of state of another country, install its favored ruler – who must now get her social media posts approved by the US Secretary of State – and gleefully announce that Venezuela is now American territory was petrifying to a lot of countries. So was the fact that European leaders praised the regime-change operation while dismissing concerns about its legality.

Europe, which had by and large stood against the George W. Bush administration’s illegal invasion of Iraq, was now enthusiastically onboard with regime change in Venezuela, all while insisting on the sanctity of international law in Ukraine and Greenland. That lack of resistance made the cost of a US neocolonial rampage all the more manageable. And given Donald Trump’s proclivities, both friends and foes of the United States feared they could be next.

The remarkable military success in Venezuela was one reason Trump became so gung-ho about war with Iran. If Venezuela took a few hours, he believed Iran would take four days at most. He promised skeptical regional leaders that the whole ordeal would “take no longer than 100 hours,” according to an Arab official.

Six months later, he is stuck in a losing war with no end in sight. And officials around the world feel relieved because Iran’s successful resistance has effectively prevented Trump from moving on to his next targets.

As one official from a traditional American ally told me: “Had it not been for the resilience of the Iranians, Trump would likely have attacked Cuba by now and perhaps even annexed Greenland.”

Keep reading

The Strait of Hormuz Is Repricing the Entire World Economy

The politicians continue to speak about the Strait of Hormuz as though this were merely a regional dispute between Iran and its neighbors. That is complete nonsense. The strait is one of the most important arteries in the global economy, carrying roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas shipments. Brent crude has moved above $91, but the headline price of oil is only the beginning. The real economic damage appears in shipping rates, insurance premiums, refinery margins, diesel prices, electricity costs, and ultimately government borrowing. War does not remain confined to the battlefield. It enters every household through inflation.

Washington claims the strait is open while Iran insists it remains closed. Both statements are political propaganda because it is the shipowners, insurers, and commodity traders who determine whether a waterway is commercially open. A tanker can theoretically pass through Hormuz, but that means nothing if the insurance premium becomes prohibitive or the crew refuses to accept the risk. Most politicians have never operated a business and do not understand that commerce depends upon confidence—not government declarations. Once confidence collapses, trade will retreat regardless of how many officials stand before cameras insisting that everything remains under control.

This is why the cost of the conflict cannot be measured solely by the number of barrels temporarily removed from the market. Every vessel delayed or redirected reduces available shipping capacity and increases freight rates elsewhere. Insurers must reprice the probability of a tanker being damaged, captured, or destroyed. Refineries must compete for alternative supplies, while countries dependent upon Gulf energy begin building precautionary inventories. Traders add a geopolitical premium because nobody knows whether the next missile will strike a ship, a refinery, a pipeline, or an export terminal. These costs compound through the entire system long before the average person notices the increase at the gasoline station.

Keep reading

Has Trump Turned the Tables on Iran – or Is Another Round of War Coming?

The Trump administration believes it has turned the tables on Iran. Washington assesses that the rerouting of maritime traffic through the Omani corridor, combined with a global shift away from Persian Gulf oil, has reduced the effectiveness of Tehran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the U.S. blockade has sharply constrained Iran’s ability to sell its oil. The result, in Washington’s view, is a status quo that imposes greater costs on Iran than on the United States.

That calculation changes the strategic equation. Rather than being forced to accommodate Iranian demands, President Donald Trump now believes he can afford to wait Tehran out. For the first time since the war began, the White House has concluded, time is working in America’s favor.

Assuming that assessment is correct, the more important question is what Trump intends to do with this newfound leverage. If Washington interprets Iran’s vulnerability as an opportunity to extract capitulation rather than to negotiate a durable settlement, the result is more likely to be another round of war than an end to the conflict. Tehran has already demonstrated that when confronted with a choice between surrender and escalation, it will choose the latter. Giving Iran the same choice again is therefore unlikely to produce a different outcome.

The only way to turn this unexpected shift in the balance of leverage into a political victory is through diplomacy. If Washington’s assessment is correct, it now has an opportunity to use its leverage to secure a compromise that addresses its core interests while giving Tehran sufficient reason to accept an agreement. If, instead, the administration pursues maximalist demands, it risks converting a moment of leverage into another cycle of war.

Historically, however, Washington has tended to make precisely this mistake. Whenever U.S. policymakers have concluded that time and leverage are on their side, they have often treated Iranian weakness not as an opening for compromise, but as an opportunity to seek capitulation. The danger is that Trump will repeat that pattern. He will mistake leverage for victory and turn a potentially favorable negotiating position into the continuation of the tragedy that is US-Iran relations.

Trump failed militarily, but thinks he can win economically

America has run out of military options. The clearest indication is that the Trump administration has stopped striking Iranian targets even as Tehran continues to attack ships transiting the Strait. On Monday, an Iranian attack killed a sailor aboard a vessel using the southern corridor. Yet Washington did not respond militarily – even though the second round of the war began precisely because the administration had declared that it could not accept Iran firing on ships.

According to Reuters, U.S. forces have used virtually all of their global stockpile of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) during the five-month Iran conflict. Moreover, roughly 65% of Patriot interceptors, 38% of THAAD interceptors, and almost half of the Navy’s Tomahawk cruise missiles have been expended.

The depletion of these stocks appears to have forced Trump to abandon its pursuit of a military knockout and instead shift the burden of economic pressure onto Tehran. That strategy, in turn, appears to be producing results faster—and to a greater degree – than the administration anticipated.

Keep reading

Really, O’Reilly? Bill Demands War Crimes In Iran

Hasn’t Bill O’Reilly done enough harm beating the drums for America’s failed foreign wars? But he’s still around somewhere, trying to top his earlier act with more of his trademark fever-swamp rants, now offering advice to President Donald Trump on the Iran War.

His latest advice is the stuff of world historic war crimes.

The danger is acute. The president watches Fox News “incessantly.” No one is real in Trump-world unless they are seen on TV. Those who are real assume a larger-than-life influence if they’ve been Fox fixtures. The passageway between Fox News and the Trump administration is like an eerie science fiction wormhole between galaxies. It not only seems to defy space and time, it defies common sense. How else could Trump have gotten Pete Hegseth?

Other Fox New hosts and contributors who ended up in the Trump administration include Sean Duffy, Jeanine Pirro, John Bolton, Larry Kudlow, Mike Walz, Dan Bongino, Sebastian Gorka, Mike Huckabee… There are more, but you get the idea. A preponderance of war enthusiasts, some for Iraq, others for Ukraine, all for Iran.

O’Reilly supported all three wars. And since he was the biggest Fox star for sixteen years, one must assume he looms large in Trump’s consciousness. That makes his pathogenic influence especially menacing.

O’Reilly does not appear to be given to intellectual exertions. During the heyday of Dr. Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns, for example, when the Federal Reserve, fiat money, and monetary policy were front and center, Bill asked a guest, “Who is this guy Keens [sic] that everybody is talking about?” Despite bloviating about politics and policy every night for years, O’Reilly simply had no idea who John Maynard Keynes was, the North Star of Washington’s calamitous economic policies for generations now.

In the twilight of a career riddled with little knowledge and worse judgement, O’Reilly showed up on NewsNation recently with advice for Trump in the Iran War. This, said O’Reilly, is what he would do if he were president of the United States:

“I would tell Iranians living in Tehran, the capital city, to get out. Because we’re going to wreck your infrastructure. That means water. That means power.”

Given his intellectual indolence, one immediately suspects that strategic advice isn’t original with O’Reilly. He is merely giving structure to a babbling, midnight Trump post during the June 2025 U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran: “Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!”

Keep reading

How Secretary Bessent Is Going Full-Hegseth Retard to No Avail

Six months after Trumpy & Bibi launched Operation Epic Fury against Iran on February 28th, the so-called kinetic campaign has settled into a costly stalemate, at best. And a de facto military defeat as a practical matter.

In fact, what began as another furious “shock and awe” military offensive designed to quickly and fatally degrade Iran’s nuclear program, missile forces, leadership, and regional power projection capability has instead produced:

  • no regime change.
  • no collapse of Iranian governance.
  • the severe depletion of American high-end munitions.
  • badly damaged US forward bases across the entire Persian Gulf (Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan)
  • significant personnel casualties, including 18 dead and 400 injured US servicemen.
  • Massive Federal budget costs now approaching $100 billion and rising rapidly.

Even more importantly, this misbegotten war has handed Tehran a durable pretext for restricting maritime traffic through and around its territorial waters and the Strait of Hormuz (SOH). That is, with virtually inexhaustible supplies of homemade missiles, drones and other tools of sabotage, Iran has been handed what amounts to a global economic Kill Switch.

Keep reading

‘We’ll Bomb the Sh*t Out of Them’: Trump and the War on Morality

Consider this hypothetical:

Two apartment buildings share a single parking lot. Management from both Building A and Building B are engaged in negotiations over how the parking lot will be organized, painted, maintained, and paid for.

Across the street is a restaurant. The restaurant’s customers primarily come from Building A, and internal studies have shown that Building B’s tenants overwhelmingly patronize the restaurant’s competition. Therefore, the restaurant is seeking to sway the parking lot negotiations to make it easier for Building A’s tenants to get to their shop, and harder for Building B’s tenants to get to the competitor.

Through back-channel discussions, the restaurant learns that Building A may be conceding to many of Building B’s requests for how the parking lot should be organized. Worried that this will help their competition, the restaurant announces on social media that if Building A doesn’t get their act together and negotiate more aggressively, they will “bomb the sh*t out of them.”

Now, that’s quite a leap. How did we go from negotiations one day to threats of mass murder the next?

If this scenario were to occur in Anytown, USA, we would immediately see this as unhinged and immoral. No, you cannot use murder as your default method of settling disputes. The vast majority of us accept this in our day-to-day lives, and the proof of this is that the vast majority of us have never murdered anybody. We settle disputes verbally, or through contractual agreements, and if negotiations fail we tend to just walk away. But for some reason when it comes to the global stage, where the harm caused by these decisions is far greater in scale, many struggle to see the issue with this type of rhetoric.

The Hormuz negotiations

Iran and Oman have been engaged in negotiations over the future governance of the Strait of Hormuz for the past few weeks. We were told in the early stages of the talks that a deal was within reach, but it is yet to materialize. The fact that these talks are even happening seems to imply a quiet U.S. admission that Iran will control the waterway in some capacity going forward, which is a major diplomatic climb-down from Donald Trump. With this concession, the focus seems to have shifted. Whereas before the goal was to “liberate the Strait,” the objective now is to get a deal that Trump can spin into a victory.

To this end, Trump has sought to influence the Iranian-Omani negotiations. In an August 17 phone call with Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, Donald Trump said “If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the sh*t out of them.”

This frustration seems to have been caused by the lack of progress towards opening the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians and Omanis said weeks ago that a deal was almost complete, only to have negotiations extend longer than anticipated. Trump, desperate for a deal that can help bring down oil prices and sooth the economic stress at home, chose to lash out at Oman, who he believes is being too favorable to Iran.

This sadly is not an unusual sentiment from Donald Trump, who has made a habit out of threatening to bomb countries as a negotiating tactic. The regularity with which Trump threatens mass murder does not make it civilized or moral, however. It makes it even more unsettling.

As a result of Trump’s loss at the hands of Iran, the American empire has been dealt a severe dent to its armor. The image of American bases scattered across the Middle East – once a symbol of military dominance – has been quite literally shattered. Trump can no longer rely on previously held assumptions about American power in order to get his way. Thus, he must lower himself rhetorically to the level of a brutal warlord.

Keep reading