Tag: iran

Trump Says US Doesn’t need NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia in Strait of Hormuz After They Snub Request for Help – “WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!”

President Trump expressed displeasure with other countries for turning down his request to send their militaries to the Strait of Hormuz to protect oil tankers as Israel and the US wage war against Iran, saying that the US will remember the refusal. 

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Trump on Saturday claimed, “Many Countries, especially those who are affected by Iran’s attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait, will be sending War Ships, in conjunction with the United States of America, to keep the Strait open and safe.”

He specifically called out “China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint,” saying securing the Strait “should have always been a team effort, and now it will be.”

However, the countries quickly rebuffed his demand and instead called for and instead urged the United States to end the war.

Trump responded to their declination of his proposition on Tuesday during a bilateral meeting with Taoiseach of Ireland Micheál Martin, saying, “We don’t need help.”

Trump further said he was “surprised” that NATO allies, while supportive of the war, “don’t want to help.”

“This was a great test because we don’t need them, but they should have been there,” he said, noting that “we as the United States have to remember that, because we think it’s pretty shocking.”

Keep reading

Deepfakes, Silence, and Strategy: How Netanyahu’s Absence Sparked Media Crisis

Speculation surrounding the alleged disappearance of Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond mere rumor, becoming part of a broader information confrontation between Israel and Iran. The absence of clear, verifiable public appearances by the Israeli prime minister has created a vacuum quickly filled by competing narratives and digital content of questionable authenticity.

Digital Doubles and the Crisis of Trust

Attempts by Israeli sources to demonstrate that Netanyahu remains active have sparked debate online. Some commentators and bloggers have pointed to visual inconsistencies in circulated videos, suggesting possible digital manipulation. These claims, however, remain unverified and should be treated with caution.

At the same time, limited official communication has contributed to speculation. In highly sensitive security environments, reduced public visibility of political leaders is not unusual, but in the current media landscape it often leads to mistrust and competing interpretations.

“Information noise around Netanyahu reflects a classic demoralization strategy, where even minor technical inconsistencies are amplified into claims of dramatic events,”

said political analyst Mikhail Egorov in comments to Pravda.Ru.

How Iran Shapes the Narrative

Iranian media and commentators have focused on raising questions rather than making direct claims, highlighting the lack of consistent imagery and communication from the Israeli leadership. This approach allows them to influence the narrative without issuing statements that could be easily disproven.

Keep reading

Trump suggests treason charges for journalists as Iran war spins out of control

You know a war probably isn’t going well when the President starts threatening media outlets with treason charges.

This weekend, President Trump unleashed one of his infamous Truth Social rants. This one targeted the Wall Street Journal, for reporting an Iranian strike that hit five U.S. Air Force refueling planes at an air base in Saudi Arabia.

“The five U.S. Refueling Planes that were supposedly struck down and badly damaged, according to The Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) false reporting, and others, are all in service, with the exception of one, which will soon be flying the skies,” he wrote.

This assertion doesn’t refute any part of the reporting, as the WSJ story says the planes weren’t destroyed.

Trump’s post equates the WSJ report with AI-generated videos of U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln burning, which began spreading after the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Navy falsely claimed it had attacked the aircraft carrier. Outlets like the New York Times have debunked the authenticity of those videos, but Trump imagines that they have been shared by U.S. media in collusion with Iran’s government. He then suggested that these news organizations be charged with treason, which carries a maximum penalty of death.

“The story was knowingly FAKE and, in a certain way, you can say that those Media Outlets that generated it should be brought up on Charges for TREASON for the dissemination of false information!,” wrote Trump. “The fact is, Iran is being decimated, and the only battles they ‘win’ are those that they create through AI, and are distributed by Corrupt Media Outlets.”

The President embraced the same narrative while talking to reporters aboard Air Force One. “Iran is known for a lot of fake news,” he declared. “I actually think it’s pretty criminal because our media companies, who have no credibility whatsoever, are putting out information that they know is false.”

Trump’s latest maniacal fantasy comes just days after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr threatened to take away the broadcasting licenses of networks that failed to “operate in the public interest” while covering the war on Iran.

“The American people have subsidized broadcasters to the tune of billions of dollars by providing free access to the nation’s airwaves,” tweeted Carr. “It is very important to bring trust back into media, which has earned itself the label of fake news.”

Keep reading

Greenwald: 9/11-Like Mass Casualty Attacks Could Trigger Permanent Emergency Measures

Tucker Carlson sat down with independent journalist Glenn Greenwald for a pointed exchange that cut straight to concerns over free speech limits and the risk of domestic fallout from the ongoing Iran conflict.

Greenwald laid out a sobering scenario: mass casualty attacks on U.S. soil could trigger sweeping “emergency measures” that, once imposed, become fixtures of American life—just as the Patriot Act did after 9/11.

The conversation opened with Greenwald addressing a noticeable imbalance in what passes for acceptable criticism in public life.

“It’s interesting that there’s no criticism of our country that is banned or even discouraged — only of a foreign country,” Carlson observed.

Carlson pressed further: “If you can’t criticize a foreign country, then that country’s in charge, right? What other conclusion should I draw?”

Greenwald responded: “I can’t really provide you with a cogent one.”

The discussion then turned to security threats inside the United States.

“Are you concerned that there could be attacks here in the United States?” Carlson asked.

Greenwald answered directly: “I feel like there was already an attack in the United States. That Austin shooting. We haven’t heard much about it, but it seemed pretty clearly linked to the Iran war.”

Keep reading

Iran strikes UAE base housing British, US and Australian troops

Iran struck a military base housing British, US and Australian troops in the United Arab Emirates during overnight strikes across the Gulf.

A missile hit the Al Minhad Air Base where the UK maintains a permanent military facility, at 9.15am AEDT on Wednesday morning.

Anthony Albanese, the Australian prime minister, said the projectile caused ‘minor damage’ to an accommodation ​block and a medical ‌facility ⁠due to a small blaze that was created as ​a result ​of ⁠the missile hitting on ​a road leading ​up ⁠to the base.

More than 100 Australian military personnel are deployed at Al Minhad.

Albanese confirmed that all Australian staff were ‘absolutely safe’ following the attack at the base, which is operated by the UAE and functions as Australia’s military headquarters for the Middle East. 

He could not confirm if Tehran directly targeted the site, however, while maintaining Australia was not at war. 

‘The Iranian regime is engaging in random attacks right across the region. We know that is the case,’ the prime minister said. 

In 2014, the UK launched a permanent headquarters at the base to support British operations in the region. 

The Ministry of Defence has yet to comment on the attack. 

Keep reading

Israel Claims to Have Eliminated Iran’s De Facto Leader Ali Larijani

The Israeli military on Tuesday announced it has eliminated Iran’s de facto leader, Ali Larijani, with an airstrike.

If the remnants of Iran’s government confirm his death, he will be the highest-level leader of the terrorist regime to be eliminated since Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei died in the first hour of the war, and he could prove to be a greater operational loss than the elderly cleric was.

“I was just informed by the Chief of Staff that the Secretary of the National Security Council, Larijani, and the head of the Basij — Iran’s main suppression body — Soleimani, were eliminated tonight and joined the head of the destruction plan, Khamenei, and all the thwarted members of the evil axis in the depths of hell,” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Tuesday.

Gholamreza Soleimani was the commander of the Basij, the thuggish militia deployed by the Iranian regime to keep its people in line during uprisings.

Soleimani assumed command of the Basij six months ago, meaning he was in charge during Iran’s violent suppression of the “Bloody November” protests in 2019, the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement in 2022, and the massive popular uprising in January 2025. The regime admitted to murdering almost 10,000 of its own people to suppress the latest uprising and some observers believe the true death toll was over three times that high.

Soleimani, 61, was under sanctions from the United States, Canada, and the European Union for his part in brutally repressing the Iranian people.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said Soleimani was eliminated by a “targeted strike yesterday in the heart of Tehran” that was “guided by precise intelligence.”

The IDF described Larijani as “the effective leader of the Iranian terror regime,” with a rap sheet that included “violent enforcement measures and repression operations,” including personal supervision of “the massacre that was carried out against Iranian protesters.”

Larijani, 67, brought scholarly credentials and a calm demeanor to his decades in the politics of the Islamic Republic. He was the consummate insider, born to a family so powerful and well-connected that it has been compared to the Kennedy dynasty in the United States.

The Larijani family popped up on American media’s radar during Iran’s brutal crackdown on protesters in January because Ali Larijani’s daughter Fatemeh held a position with Emory University in Georgia. The university severed its relationship with her in late January under intense public pressure as the death toll in the crackdown supervised by her father mounted.

Keep reading

The Most Obvious Question Liberal Media Refuses to Ask About the Iran War

Doubtless, the war launched by US President Donald Trump is not popular among ordinary Americans.

According to the latest public opinion poll, only a minority of Americans—part of the dwindling core of Trump’s supporters—believe that the US-Israeli aggression against Iran has merit.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in early March 2026, only 27 percent of Americans approve of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran—while 43 percent disapprove and 29 percent are unsure.

This pro-war constituency is likely to remain supportive of Trump until the end of his term in office, and long after.

However, the war on Iran is not popular, and it is unlikely to become popular, especially as the Trump administration is reportedly fragmented between those who want to stay the course and those desperate for an exit strategy. Such a strategy would allow their president to save face before the midterm elections in November.

Mainstream media—aside, of course, from the pro-war chorus in right-wing news organizations, podcasters, and think tanks—also recognize that their country has entered a quagmire.

If it continues unchecked, it will likely prove worse than the war in Iraq in 2003 or the long war in Afghanistan, which lasted 20 years and ended with a decisive American defeat in August 2021 following the withdrawal of US forces and the collapse of the Afghan government.

Both wars have cost US taxpayers an estimated $8 trillion, including long-term veteran care and interest on borrowing, according to the Brown University Costs of War Project.

Iran is already promising to be even more costly if the insanity of the war—instigated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war-crazed government—does not end very quickly.

Many Americans may understand the difficult situation in which Trump’s unhinged behavior and his unexplained loyalty to Netanyahu have placed their country. What they rarely confront is the moral dimension of that crisis.

Though they speak of the war’s failure—the lack of strategy, the lack of preparation, the absence of an end goal, and the confusion surrounding its objectives—very few in mainstream media have taken what should have been the obvious moral position: that the war itself is criminal, unjustifiable, and illegal under international law.

Keep reading

The Explosion Inside Trump’s War Machine: Joe Kent Resigns

Joe Kent’s resignation is not an anomaly but an alarm: elite dissent is surfacing early because this war is built on deception.

Joe Kent’s resignation is shocking, but not for the obvious reason.

It is not shocking simply because it comes from within the Trump administration. Any administration of that size, stretching across thousands of officials, operatives and career personnel, will contain people who, despite the surrounding culture, still draw moral lines of their own.

Even an administration defined by blunt militarism, racialized rhetoric and an unapologetic embrace of force is not morally monolithic. There is always room, however narrow, for someone to say: enough.

What makes Kent’s resignation important is something else entirely: the language, the timing, and the political location from which it emerged.

When other officials resigned over Gaza, they established a standard of ethical clarity that still matters. Former UN human rights official Craig Mokhiber resigned on October 28, 2023, warning that “we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes” and describing Gaza as “a textbook case of genocide.”

Former State Department official Stacy Gilbert, who resigned in May 2024 over a government report on Israeli obstruction of aid, put it just as bluntly: “There is so clearly a right and wrong, and what is in that report is wrong.”

These were not carefully lawyered exits. They were moral positions.

Kent belongs in a different political universe than Mokhiber or Gilbert. That is precisely why his resignation carries such force.

He was not some liberal holdout inside a hawkish administration. He was the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, confirmed in July 2025, a former Green Beret, a former CIA paramilitary officer, and by every normal measure a deeply embedded figure within the national security state.

He was also a Trump-aligned Republican whose confirmation battle was shaped by ties to far-right figures and conspiracy politics, according to AP. In other words, this was not an outsider recoiling from empire. This was a man from within that machinery saying he could no longer justify this war.

And he did not mince words.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” Kent wrote. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

That sentence alone is politically explosive. It does not merely criticize tactics. It indicts the rationale of the war itself.

Then Kent went further.

“Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran,” he wrote.

And then the bluntest line of all:

“This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war.”

This is not bureaucratic dissent. This is a direct accusation of manipulation, deception, and foreign-policy capture.

That is what makes this resignation different.

Keep reading

How War in Iran Affects Grocery Prices for Everyday Americans

Walmart has essentially eradicated all of the mom & pop grocery stores where I live in western Kentucky. Which, for better or worse, forces virtually the entire city’s population to descend on the store for grocery shopping. As you walk into the store, you will inevitably be bombarded with messages from the intercom to get a flu shot or some other seasonal vaccine. This will be followed by a reminder that soda and potato chips are on sale.

Shopping in the local Walmart presents a fair picture of middle America. The county’s poverty rate is above 17%, homes are unaffordable, drug addiction is rampant, and wages remain stagnant. Among all of these issues, the rising cost of grocery prices make it challenging for many people in the community to afford real, whole foods. The unfortunate alternative is to purchase cheap junk food, go to a local food pantry, or simply go without. The simple reality is that many Americans can no longer keep up with rising costs in the grocery store.

But what does this have to do with war in Iran?

We often hear that Congress has passed a new defense budget, ever again surpassing its previous allocations. The most recent appropriations allocated $838 billion to military services in FY26 and now both President Trump and his domestic allies are calling for an increase to $1.5 trillion. For everyday Americans, that number is frankly unfathomable. But have you ever questioned, how does America pay for war?

Income tax has not always been permanent in America. But to give you the short version of the story, it was created to fund war and then later adopted as a permanent fixture. During times of war, Congress has periodically increased taxes to fund operations. However, politicians can only raise taxes so much before citizens begin caring about where their dollars are going. As a result, we no longer increase taxes for the sole purpose of funding wars.

Instead, we use debt. Because the public would be unwilling to fund wars through taxes, the American government defers to borrowing money. But where does that money come from? There is never enough capital in circulation to fulfill the American bloodlust, so it must be printed.

The American government’s incessant use of debt as a means to pay for wars of choice directly devalues the dollar’s purchasing power by forcing banks to digitally print money. Every dollar borrowed inflates our currency which, in turn, increases prices for everyday goods while working class compensation remains stagnant. It has held true for decades that wages do not and will not keep up with inflation.

Keep reading

Oil & Religion

QUESTION: Marty, looking at Socrates, it does not show that this release of 400 million barrels of oil will do much. Am I reading this correctly?

ANSWER: The International Energy Agency released 400 million barrels of oil into the global market, the largest release of emergency oil stocks in history. This is just for show. However, it actually makes things far more vulnerable. This is all predicated on a quick victory with the conquest of Iran. If that assumption is wrong, this will not help.

1. MATHEMATICALLY INSUFFICIENT (won’t even cover 2-3 months of lost supply)
2. STRATEGICALLY STUPID (leaves U.S. vulnerable to future crises)
3. POLITICALLY DESPERATE (election-year panic move)
4. ECONOMICALLY FUTILE (treats symptom, not disease)

Let’s get real. Global oil consumption is about 100 million barrels/day (mb/d). U.S. consumption is about 20 million barrels/day. The disruption of the Strait of Hormuz supply affects about 21 million barrels/day (21% of global supply).  Releasing 400 million barrels at the global consumption rate would last 19 days (400M ÷ 21M/day). There is no way this will calm markets in the long term.

Keep reading