Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Join up the dots and you come to the same conclusion. America and Israel are the biggest losers in the Iran war. But not Trump.

A recent poll in the U.S. concluded that Donald Trump tells the truth only about 3 percent of the time during his public announcements at press conferences. Perhaps it was his stint at being a celebrity on TV that taught him how gullible people in America are when fed the most fanciful, moronic lies a leading figure can tell, through the American media. Of course, it’s also about the journalists as well, and if there’s one thing that the Trump administrations have taught us, it is how poor the general level of journalism is in America these days. American journalists are not afraid to ask difficult questions or disbelieve what they are told. They simply don’t know how to do this in the first place.

Covering the Iran war, it is breathtaking, some of the brazen lies he tells while being questioned by journalists who are complicit in his dirty work. The mere idea that Iran, for example, acquired a Tomahawk missile and used it to kill its own schoolgirls is beyond absurd. How could journalists not question such a reply when it is so clear that Trump is lying through his teeth?

Because of this lying, we can see how Trump works, though. Unlike other U.S. presidents who have some shame and discomfort in lying to the press, Trump suffers no such handicap and so can take on bolder, more daring ventures on the global stage. In this environment, there is no respect for international law or even due process within the political framework of how Congress works. Trump hasn’t worked out how to defeat Iran, but he has all the contingent narratives to lay out afterwards to explain why everything that goes wrong is not his fault. We see that he is already preparing himself for the day of judgement by the press pack in the coming days and weeks by telling them that it was Jared Kushner, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff who told him to hit Iran.

The direction towards these three is revealing. Of course, we have learned the simple rule of Trump when it comes to decisions. When things go well, everything was his decision; when things go badly, blame others.

And so, the blaming of these three is a clear example and acknowledgement by Trump that the Iran war was a failure. The U.S. didn’t bring about regime change nor seek any military concessions from its government. In fact, it’s really hard to establish one minor point where you could say that the Americans chalked up any kind of victory, given the high energy prices around the world and the Straits of Hormuz still closed to oil tankers. Despite the U.S. being a net exporter of oil, the crisis is raising pump prices back home, and so it is Trump’s support base of blue-collar workers who are, once again, paying the price for his failed policies.

This last point about the Straits of Hormuz is worth taking stock of when we examine Trump’s lies, which just get increasingly fatuous by the day. It’s like we’re dealing with a child in power who has lost sense of any of the realities around him. One of Trump’s claims which he repeats over and over again is that the U.S. navy has completely destroyed its Iranian counterpart, and that all ships have been sunk. And yet there is no video evidence at all to support this, official or even just phone footage from even one U.S. sailor’s phone. Could this be another massive Trump lie, given that he is struggling to prove to the American people or the press that the operation has been a success? Very convenient that all Iranian vessels happen to have been sunk. Perhaps the truth sunk and the Iranian vessels are still operational. The saddest thing is that not one American “journalist” is even able at a press conference, or even in their copy, to ask the most obvious question about this claim, which is: “If there is no Iranian navy, then why are the Straits of Hormuz still closed to ships passing through?”

Or is it that the Iranian navy has been destroyed, but Iran’s control of the shipping and its threat against America’s aircraft carriers is so strong and prevalent that the U.S. navy doesn’t have the capability to break the siege?

Trump is busy building up a case to make him look less culpable in the whole war, which in itself is a massive admission that it has all gone horribly wrong. These indicators are subtle and sometimes are not easy to spot, like his recent comment that GCC countries helped the U.S. bomb Iran. So the mighty U.S. navy, air force and army did not come up to scratch and had to rely on regional partners? The president needs some help here with his messaging, as he is clearly trying to spread the blame and reduce his own importance, perhaps as a ploy to not only protect himself from impeachment but from facing international criminal courts.

The lie that GCC countries bombed Iran is even more laughable than the one about Iran bombing its own schoolgirls, but with no real journalists around who are even able to ask the most obvious questions, he’ll be able to get away with it, despite the odd dichotomy of logic shooting himself in the foot. The truth about the so-called Iran War is that almost nothing we see on our TV screens is anywhere near the truth. Sometimes it is simply omission, as in the case of the real level of destruction in Israel, which is not being reported due to a shameful agreement struck between U.S. networks and Israel to block the truth and only show bombs which have hit civilian targets rather than military ones. The biggest lie possibly concerns the reasons behind it, although blithering buffoons like Lindsey Graham can hardly keep the lid on it. Money. Do even Trump’s more vociferous supporters doubt for one moment that he hasn’t made billions out of it by manipulating markets?

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Сorporate media of all stripes have rushed to support the U.S./Israeli attack on Iran, throwing objectivity and accuracy by the wayside in order to manufacture consent for regime change.

On February 28, the U.S. and Israel launched a joint attack on Iran, bombing cities across the country, assassinating its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and openly stating their goal was overthrowing the government.

Despite this, media have gone out of their way to present the actions as the U.S. protecting itself, describing them as “defensive strikes,” and to frame Iran as the aggressor. “Iran chooses chaos” ran the headline of the New York Times’ newsletter, portraying the Islamic Republic as the primary actor.

The Free Press used similarly Orwellian concepts. “War is Iranians’ best chance at peace,” presenting U.S./Israeli crimes as an act of mercy on its long-suffering population.

Meanwhile, under the new leadership of self-described “Zionist fanatic” Bari Weiss, CBS News has transformed itself into a mouthpiece for the Israeli Defense Forces, interviewing IDF Brigadier General Effie Defrin, and uncritically presenting Israel’s war as “aimed at preventing a wider global threat.”

Across the West, corporate media have employed the same tactics of using the passive voice and not naming the perpetrator when describing U.S./Israeli aggression. A perfect encapsulation of this was the BBC’s headline, “At least 153 dead after reported strike on school, Iran says,” that made it sound as if the children died in a lightning strike or a labor dispute, rather than that they were bombed by hostile foreign powers.

Israeli casualties were given more sympathetic coverage than their Iranian counterparts, while media regularly toned down the language used to describe Israeli actions to make them sound more reasonable, and did the opposite with Iran. The Washington Post, for example, wrote (emphasis added) “Israel urges evacuation of south Beirut suburbs; Iran threatens revenge on U.S. over warship.” Thus, Israel was treated as making a good faith attempt to reduce civilian casualties, while the Iranian response to their ship being attacked and sunk in international waters was presented as menacing.

Another common tactic of delegitimization media use is to describe the Iranian as a “regime” (e.g., Bloomberg, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, CNN, NBC News). The word “regime” immediately discredits a government, and cues the reader to oppose it. The phrase “Israeli regime” is virtually never used, unless in a quote from Iranian officials.

Earlier this week, large numbers of Israeli troops re-invaded southern Lebanon. Media attempted to find ways to present the operation as legitimate, including euphemistically using the phrase “cross over into Lebanon” to describe the invasion, or even blaming Hezbollah for the violence. CNN, for instance, wrote that, “Hezbollah is dragging Lebanon into the war on Iran,” and that “Hezbollah just restarted the fight that Israel was waiting to finish,” thereby flipping the realities of who was attacking whom.

There have also been a number of fawning profiles of Israeli leaders. “Benjamin Netanyahu’s long career was built on conflict avoidance—then, October 7 transformed and radicalized him,” wrote The Atlantic. In Britain, the coverage from some quarters was even more positive. “Netanyahu is the great war leader of our age” The Daily Telegraph stated, describing the prime minister as a “genius.”

The Daily Telegraph’s Monday front page headline read “Britain backs war on Iran,” with a picture of diaspora Iranians cheering on the bombing of their country. The reality, however, is far less jingoistic. A YouGov poll published the same day found that only 28% of U.K. citizens support U.S./Israeli actions, with 49% expressing their opposition to them. Nevertheless, BBC anchor Nick Robinson suggested, on air, that protests against the U.S./Israeli attacks should be banned across the U.K.

This sort of mentality should come as no surprise, given BBC leadership’s stated positions on Israel. The corporation’s Middle East editor, Raffi Berg, is a former CIA operative and Mossad collaborator who has a signed letter of recommendation from Netanyahu on his office wall.

Anonymous BBC employees speaking to Drop Site News claimed that Berg’s “entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel.” They went on to allege that he holds “wild” amounts of power at the British state broadcaster, that there exists a culture of “extreme fear” at the BBC about publishing anything critical of Israel, and that Berg himself plays a key role in turning its coverage into “systematic Israeli propaganda.” The BBC has disputed these claims.

If true, the sort of top-down pro-Israel bias at the BBC closely mirrors that of American outlets. A leaked 2023 New York Times memo revealed that company management explicitly instructed its reporters not to use words such as “genocide,” “slaughter,” and “ethnic cleansing” when discussing Israel’s actions. Times staff must refrain from using words like “refugee camp,” “occupied territory,” or even “Palestine” in their reporting, making it almost impossible to convey some of the most basic facts to their audience.

CNN employees face similar pressure. In the wake of the October 7 attacks, the company’s C.E.O. Mark Thompson sent out a memo to all staff instructing them to make sure that Hamas (and not Israel) is presented as responsible for the violence, that they must always use the moniker “Hamas-controlled” when discussing the Gaza Health Ministry and their civilian death figures, and barring them from any reporting of Hamas’ viewpoint, which its senior director of news standards and practices told staff was “not newsworthy” and amounted to “inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda.”

German media conglomerate Axel Springer, meanwhile – owner of outlets such as Politico and Business Insider – requires its employees to sign what amounts to a loyalty oath to support “the trans-Atlantic alliance and Israel.” The company fired a Lebanese employee who, through internal channels, questioned the requirement.

American newsrooms are also filled with former Israel lobbyists. A MintPress News investigation found hundreds of former employees of Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC, StandWithUs and CAMERA working in top newsrooms across the country, writing and producing America’s news – including on Israel-Palestine. These outlets include MSNBC, The New York Times, CNN, and Fox News.

There are even ex-Israeli spies writing our news. Another MintPress report revealed a network of former agents of IDF intelligence outfit, Unit 8200, working in America’s newsrooms, including at CNN and Axios.

Therefore, with American newsrooms presided over and staffed in no small part by pro-Israel zealots, it is far from a surprise that their coverage closely mirrors the outlook and biases of Washington and Tel Aviv.

And now, with CNN, CBS News, and TikTok owned by CIA asset Larry Ellison, the IDF’s largest private funder and a close personal friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, we should only expect the propaganda to be dialed up to eleven.

Original article: mintpressnews.com

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

When you dance with the devil, the dance isn’t done until you are done. U.S. President Trump may have believed he could manage Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s maniacal ambitions and succeed in a contest for power; sometimes hidden, other times open. Until February 27^th, considering the ending of the 12 Day War last summer, and also UNSC 2803 on Gaza, Trump appeared to have the upper hand. But on February 28th, the script would be flipped, resulting in an honorless war on Iran; not only on the Iranian government, military, and state institutions, but on the Iranian people themselves.

The victims in this are chiefly the people of Iran, starting with some 165 Iranian school girls at the Minab school in southern Iran, killed by Israeli strikes, though Iran will not remain victims as they push to become victors. Yet this conflict has other casualties too. Trump, MAGA, and whatever efforts at rebuilding American credibility appear to be among the ruins of the US-Israeli attack on the sovereign nation of Iran, and the despicable assassination of its leader Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei. It appears that the U.S. has passed the point of no return.

The solemn burial of the 165 school girls wantonly slaughtered by U.S.-Israeli attacks

Some time ago the U.S. pushed the world into mayhem in the domain of international law. The Western powers had, since the end of the 20^th century Cold War, begun to shift away from a formal acknowledgement of international law, and pursued the rhetoric and practice of a so-called “rules based order”; one where the rules were unilaterally created by the Washington consensus, and were fluid, constantly shifting, conveniently and hypocritically to meet the needs of the American imperial machine. Trump’s mandate, from the American people, was to restore international law and credibility. But in the 47^th administration, there were some disconcerting signs early on that this would not be the case, even if somewhat hilarious. Threats made against Greenland and Canada were more comical than worrisome at the time. The strange (if mutually agreeable) outcomes with Venezuela seemed to have been a win-win for both countries. Nationalists laughed, globalists cried; but it’s all fun and games until it’s not.

So today to describe the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran as “violations of international law”, or “war crimes”, while no doubt true, feel very much like meaningless technical phrases from a bygone era. And in this new day and age, it is therefore clearer and more germane to simply describe these viscerally as murderous and valourless. It is mass murder, for at the time of writing, more than a thousand Iranian people have been killed in these wanton attacks, and this is simply ignominious, for Iran posed no imminent threat and the U.S. was engaged with Iran in negotiations towards a peaceable resolution of their differences.  It was right when the U.S. and Iran had all but tentatively agreed that Israel notified the U.S. that it was about to strike, and it is important to meditate on the profoundly dishonorable and discrediting nature of the U.S. going in on the attack instead of pushing to halt it.

Trump apparently made the grievous error, one of potentially world-changing proportions, to join in with these attacks, unlike the way his administration handled Israel’s attacks last summer. We have arrived at a catastrophic inflection point for the MAGA project and American credibility. It is impossible to underscore enough the extraordinary damage done to the U.S.’s efforts to improve its reputation under Trump, after decades of neoconservative and neoliberal imperialist adventurism in the post-Cold War period which ostensibly the Trump project was aimed at reversing.

Nuclear Blackmail?

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou claimed back in November of 2025 that Netanyahu threatened Trump with Israeli nuclear strikes on Iran, if Trump did not go along with a conventional strike at the time. Kiriakou says this information comes to him from a trusted source, and Kiriakou’s own credentials, history, and credibility as a whistle-blower who served time in U.S. prison as a result of his commitment to truth, combined with his unique access to insider information, leads us to give high credence to his testimony.

Former CIA Counter-terrorism office John Kiriakou in the November 2025 interview

According to Kiriakou:

“The reason though, I’m told that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran, was that the Israelis said for the first time, ‘If you don’t bomb Iran to take out these deep bunkers, we are going to use nuclear weapons.’ And they have never threatened that before. And so Trump said, bombing Iran might actually save us from the start of World War III, if it keeps the Israelis from using nuclear weapons.”

In addition, we are forced to account for the conclusions of ex Saudi intel chief Prince Turki al-Faisal, who explains that Netanyahu “convinced” Trump to support him on February 28th, concluding that “This is Netanyahu’s war”.

Al Faisal’s interview with Amanpour on CNN, March 4, 2026

Trump has apparently been outmaneuvered by the Zionist establishment, even if this was the result of nuclear blackmail, and has driven MAGA smack into a Zionist brick wall, while we should caution that these are unfolding events and this is but the read of things as of today.

Trump has been trapped, compromised, and outplayed by Netanyahu and the Israeli establishment, resulting in U.S. participation in a horrifically discrediting and strategically counterproductive war on Iran. While Trump might attempt to salvage the situation, more will rely on the diplomatic and strategic intervention of BRICS leaders like Russia, China, and even India, to de-escalate this crisis.

Eliminating Khamenei was strategically self-defeating even in the narrowest and immediate sense, as the Ayatollah was arguably a moderating force on the nuclear question, and Iran’s technocratic system ensures institutional continuity regardless of leadership decapitation. It would be understandable, even expected, now if Iran were indeed to pursue nuclear weapons, assessing what has happened in some part no doubt because they do not apparently have one now. Which is not to say they ought to, but who could readily blame them today if they did?

The Kiriakou claim about Israeli nuclear blackmail, if true, represents nuclear terrorism by definition, but there is a fundamental flaw in the logic of compliance: if Trump bombed Iran to prevent an Israeli nuclear strike last summer, nothing prevents Israel from issuing the same threat again with escalating demands. The leverage problem is not resolved by submission to it, which is perhaps then what we have seen again on February 28th.

Rubio’s disavowal of the Khamenei assassination is another strange factor in this. Is it plausible deniability, or a reflection of team Trump having lost control of the situation?  Kiriakou’s claim of Israeli nuclear threats against Trump, Saudi complaints about the lack of defense for US regional bases, Prince Turki al-Faisal’s conclusion that Netanyahu pushed Trump into the war, and reports of Iranian retaliatory strikes on U.S. bases for which the Americans were underprepared, all lend towards the conclusion that the U.S. lost control of the situation and did not seek a confrontation where increasingly successful negotiations were merely a ruse.

Khamenei’s Assassination: Strategic Futility

The assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei was counterproductive on its own terms. The Ayatollah was elderly, physically declining, and had perhaps a few years remaining. If the objective was to prevent Iranian nuclearization, Khamenei’s continued leadership served that purpose better than his removal.

Iran operates as a “meritocratic technocracy” organized around organizations of experts, where individuals are promoted to below their level of competence: the next tier of leadership is perpetually prepared. This is a system governed by institutions, not men, with the sole exception of the Supreme Ayatollah’s interpretive authority. Decapitation strikes against such a system are structurally futile, and in terms of morale within Iran, these do not serve to reduce it but to strengthen their resolve and unity.

Trump’s previous behavior is inconsistent with the interpretation that he simply wanted war with Iran. Historical friction with Pompeo and Bolton, friction with Netanyahu, the fact that military conditions favored an attack far more in 2017-2018, and the events of the 12-Day War in which Trump forced Israeli jets to turn around, as they were trying to break the ceasefire just agreed to, in such a way that would pull the U.S. in the way we see now. These all point in the direction of Trump’s preference for non-military solutions at times when military conditions and a more coherent casus belli were more favorable than now. We may recall Trump being quite irate at Israel for trying to break the ceasefire:

“Uh they violated, but Israel violated it, too. Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs the likes of which I’ve never seen before. The biggest load that we’ve seen. I’m not happy with Israel. You know, when when I say, “Okay, now you have 12 hours.” You don’t go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them. So, I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran either. But I’m really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning because of one rocket that didn’t land that was shot perhaps by mistake that didn’t land. I’m not happy about that. You know what we have? We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f*ck they’re doing. Do you understand that?”

Trump’s irate comments to the Guardian about Israel’s bellicosity at the end of the 12 Day War

Conclusively, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statements to press more or less confirm that Israel initiated the conflict, and the U.S. went ahead and joined it, on the rationale that Iran would retaliate against both parties even if Israel was the chief provocateur. While from the perspective of international law, the U.S. had no business threatening Iran in the first place, within that microcosm of reality, there is a certain logic to it. Iran, after all, is not in the business of being fooled by any sort of ‘good cop/bad cop’ antics, nor would they let the U.S. off the hook by buying into some sort of plausible deniability. Moreover, Iran had already warned the U.S. that any strike from either party would result in a firm military response aimed at numerous U.S. military bases and installations in the region. Rubio accounts that the Pentagon’s assessment was that because Iran would strike the U.S. anyhow, even though Israel was the aggressor, then the U.S. had better join in on the initial attack in order to mitigate their own losses.

But Rubio’s response points to a broader reality. Rubio, on behalf of the administration, had effectively shifted blame onto Israel and the Pentagon, and in so doing attempted to deflect responsibility and tell a story that “our hands were tied” by the logic of the conflict. It’s a fair point, within the problematic setup that the U.S. had created for itself in the first place, we should note.

At the end of the day, it is most probable that Israel will begin soon to pressure the U.S. to engage in ceasefire talks with the Iranians. According to Israel’s Ynet, the Americans themselves apparently tried to immediately end the conflict right as it started, but because the Israelis (if we are to believe Rubio) had assassinated Khamenei, the Iranians weren’t having it. After all, the U.S. or Israel has now attacked Iran three times already, entirely unprovoked. Iran has planned for a multi-year war, and Khamenei’s strategic legacy was one of preparing Iran for such a conflict, with a victory strategy contingent upon decentralizing their forces within Iran, withstanding ongoing and major strikes on buildings associated with traditional command and control in Tehran, the ensuing havoc upon the global economy that such a war would create including the Strait of Hormuz, combined with Israel’s relative inability to take punches for too long – the same metric that forced Israel to push the U.S. for a ceasefire at the end of the 12 Day War last summer.

The attacks on U.S. bases in the region are meant to disrupt the ability for the aggressors to resupply and support Israel, paving the way for increasingly effective attacks on Israeli military targets like we have seen before.

Trump is no doubt in store for a very painful lesson due to his honorless bellicosity in service of Netanyahu’s unhinged war-mongering. Does he have a trick up his sleeve? Will he once again pull a rabbit out of the hat? He has surprised the world numerous times, so time will tell. But as things look, his project appears burnt and there is little sympathy for his own political survival among large swathes of his former supporters. Can he get them back? Can dead school children be brought back to life? There’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. At the same time, if Iran succeeds at hitting the U.S. and Israel hard, and Trump is able to end this conflict sooner than later, the world will be better off for it. As for Israel’s alleged nuclear blackmail, that’s a gift that keeps on giving, and one that needs to be confronted.

Follow Joaquin on Telegram @NewResistance or on X/Twitter @XoaquinFlores

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The oppression of women has been at the core of the CIA’s propaganda attacks against Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. All the media outlets, think tanks, NGOs, parties, and personalities that make up the CIA’s extensive payroll accuse Iran of oppressing women. This campaign of demagoguery reached alarming levels when the U.S. government decided to attempt a coup through a failed color revolution and now bombards the Persian nation incessantly.

Daily events, however, invariably demolish this demagoguery and cruelly expose its hypocrisy.

This artificial feminist movement is even authorized by its sponsors to denounce Trump’s sexism or Netanyahu’s violence when such denunciations have no power to affect the general policy of imperialism and represent no serious confrontation with those governments. Or when Democrats and liberals want to undermine the power of the far right solely to reap electoral benefits. In any case, this phenomenon amounts to nothing more than an imperialist pawn.

The dominant slogans about the oppression of women follow to the letter the script of the great bankers and capitalists, especially the European and American ones. The same applies to the demagoguery surrounding the oppression of Black people, homosexuals, Indigenous peoples, immigrants, and the various “minorities.”

It is enough to see that this monstrous propaganda apparatus, which made such a spectacle against Trump’s sexism, fully supports the imperialist aggressions led by the president of the United States. Or did anyone see CNN, BBC, DW, and Rede Globo denouncing the kidnapping of the Venezuelan first lady and deputy Cilia Flores along with Nicolás Maduro? Is it possible to find a greater oppression against women than the massacre of at least 150 girls at the school in Minab, in southern Iran, carried out by a U.S. bombing launched from a base in the United Arab Emirates? And among the more than 1,300 people killed in U.S. and Israeli attacks against Iran, how many hundreds were women?

The imperialist aggression against Iran is being fully supported by the feminist demagoguery industry made in the USA. Part of it even criticized Israel’s genocide in Gaza, but only so as not to lose the little credibility it still manages to maintain, thanks to the blindness of the majority of the petty bourgeoisie. Yet from the moment the regime responsible for the extermination of around 15,000 Palestinian women—the terrorist regime of Israel—launched aggression together with the United States against Iran, Jeffrey Epstein’s colleagues suddenly turned into liberators of Iranian women.

Of course, all these immaculate fighters against fake news will not say that Iran is one of the most progressive countries in the Middle East, where women have achieved rights that they do not have in most neighboring countries, where they enjoy broad access to higher education, the labor market, leisure, and freedom to dress in ways found in no other country of the Gulf. Rights won by the Revolution of 1979.

What the imperialists have never accepted is precisely the fact that Iran carried out a revolution that freed it from the slavery imposed on the overwhelming majority of the world’s peoples by the very same forces that present themselves as liberators of women. And in the face of the constant aggressions of those slave masters, that revolution has only grown stronger—to the point that, at this moment, it is paying back with interest all the provocations, threats, and attacks it has suffered over decades.

The actions of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have no precedent in modern history. By destroying or severely damaging U.S. and NATO military bases, embassies, and other facilities—and by bombing the largest of them (the land stolen from Palestine called “Israel”)—Iran is striking a monumental blow against the imperialist presence in the Middle East.

“We have no choice but to put an end to the American presence in the Gulf,” said the Persian deputy foreign minister, Sayed Khatibzadeh. These words express Iran’s conviction that its war is not merely a war of definitive independence against aggressive powers—though that alone would already justify fighting it. It is an even more sacred war: a war to free the entire region from the colonial domination of the United States and other imperialist powers, which are there only to plunder its oil and natural wealth and to control one of the arteries of the global capitalist system.

Since the late nineteenth century, in order to guarantee the plunder of those peoples, the imperialist powers imposed puppet dictatorships that would control the populations with weapons, training, technology, and full political, diplomatic, and economic support from the United States and European imperialist nations. They even artificially created many of those countries.

The regimes of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, and of course Israel remain in power only because of the strong military presence of the United States and NATO. Without it, they would never exist. The governments of most of these countries are monarchies or military dictatorships where political rights and democratic freedoms do not exist and where, obviously, women live in the deepest darkness. At this stage, of course, “progressive” demagoguery will not utter a word, but it is difficult to believe that Iranian women are more oppressed than Saudi women.

By attacking imperialist installations in those countries, Iran is undermining the foundations of colonial domination over their peoples. It not only weakens the U.S. military presence but also, consequently, the very puppet regimes created to more conveniently exploit their wealth. These artificial and oppressive regimes become increasingly fragile as Iran expels imperialism. The weakening of these regimes means the weakening of exploitation over their peoples. Iran’s expulsion of imperialism opens the path for the fall of this entire system of oppression, especially the regimes themselves.

It will not be long before the peoples of the entire Middle East hail the Islamic Republic of Iran. And women will be freer than ever, following the example of Iranian women.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

La opresión de la mujer forma parte del eje central de los ataques propagandísticos de la CIA contra Irán desde la Revolución Islámica de 1979. Todos los medios de comunicación, think tanks, ONG, partidos y personalidades que componen la extensa nómina de la CIA acusan a Irán de oprimir a las mujeres. Esta campaña de demagogia alcanzó niveles alarmantes cuando el gobierno estadounidense decidió impulsar un golpe mediante una revolución de color fallida y ahora bombardea incesantemente a la nación persa.

Los acontecimientos cotidianos, sin embargo, invariablemente echan por tierra esta demagogia y desenmascaran su hipocresía de manera cruel.

Este movimiento feminista artificial incluso recibe autorización de sus financiadores para denunciar el machismo de Trump o la violencia de Netanyahu cuando esas denuncias no tienen el poder de afectar la política general del imperialismo y no representan ningún enfrentamiento contundente con esos gobiernos. O cuando los demócratas y liberales quieren minar el poder de la extrema derecha únicamente para cosechar beneficios electorales. En cualquier caso, este fenómeno no pasa de ser una masa de maniobra imperialista.

Las consignas dominantes sobre la opresión de la mujer siguen al pie de la letra el guion de los grandes banqueros y capitalistas, sobre todo los europeos y estadounidenses. Lo mismo ocurre con la demagogia en torno a la opresión de los negros, de los homosexuales, de los indígenas, de los inmigrantes y de las diversas “minorías”.

Basta ver que todo ese aparato monstruoso de propaganda, que tanto teatro hizo contra el machismo de Trump, presta todo su apoyo a las agresiones imperialistas encabezadas por el presidente de Estados Unidos. ¿O acaso alguien vio a CNN, BBC, DW y Rede Globo denunciando el secuestro de la primera dama y diputada venezolana, Cilia Flores, junto con Nicolás Maduro? ¿Será posible encontrar una opresión mayor contra las mujeres que la masacre de al menos 150 niñas en la escuela de Minab, en el sur de Irán, ejecutada por un bombardeo estadounidense proveniente de una base en los Emiratos Árabes? Y, de las más de 1.300 víctimas fatales de ataques de Estados Unidos e Israel contra Irán, ¿cuántos centenares eran mujeres?

La agresión imperialista contra Irán está siendo apoyada íntegramente por la industria de la demagogia feminista made in USA. Parte de ella incluso criticó el genocidio de Israel en Gaza, pero solo para no perder el poco de credibilidad que todavía logra mantener, gracias a la ceguera de la mayoría de la pequeña burguesía. Sin embargo, desde el momento en que el responsable del exterminio de cerca de 15.000 palestinas, el régimen terrorista de Israel, inició la agresión junto con Estados Unidos contra Irán, ¡los colegas de Jeffrey Epstein se transformaron en libertadores de las mujeres iraníes!

Por supuesto, todos esos inmaculados combatientes de las fake news no dirán que Irán es uno de los países más progresistas de Oriente Medio, donde las mujeres han alcanzado derechos que no poseen en la mayoría de los países vecinos, donde tienen amplio acceso a la educación superior, al mercado laboral, al ocio y libertad para vestirse como en ningún otro país del Golfo. Derechos conquistados por la Revolución de 1979.

Lo que los imperialistas jamás aceptaron es precisamente el hecho de que Irán haya realizado una revolución que lo liberó de la esclavitud impuesta a la aplastante mayoría de los pueblos del mundo por los mismos que se presentan como libertadores de las mujeres. Y, frente a las constantes agresiones de esos señores de esclavos, aquella revolución solo se fortaleció, hasta el punto de que, en este momento, está devolviendo con creces todas las provocaciones, amenazas y ataques que sufrió a lo largo de décadas.

La acción del Cuerpo de los Guardianes de la Revolución Islámica no tiene precedentes en la historia moderna. Al destruir o dañar gravemente las bases militares, embajadas y demás instalaciones de Estados Unidos y de la OTAN, además de bombardear la mayor de ellas (la tierra robada de Palestina llamada “Israel”), Irán está asestando un golpe monumental contra la presencia imperialista en Oriente Medio.

“No tenemos otra opción que poner fin a la presencia estadounidense en el Golfo”, afirmó el viceministro de Relaciones Exteriores persa, Sayed Khatibzadeh. Estas palabras expresan la convicción iraní de que su guerra no es solo una guerra de independencia definitiva contra potencias agresoras —si fuera solo eso, ya valdría la pena librarla—. Es una guerra aún más sagrada: la guerra para liberar a toda la región del dominio colonial de Estados Unidos y de las demás potencias imperialistas, que no están allí sino para saquear su petróleo y sus riquezas naturales y controlar una de las arterias del sistema capitalista mundial.

Desde finales del siglo XIX, para garantizar el saqueo de aquellos pueblos, las potencias imperialistas impusieron dictaduras títeres que controlaran a las poblaciones con armas, entrenamiento, tecnología y todo el apoyo político, diplomático y económico de Estados Unidos y de las naciones imperialistas europeas. Incluso crearon artificialmente buena parte de esos países.

Los regímenes de los Emiratos Árabes, Baréin, Kuwait, Catar, Arabia Saudita, Omán, Yemen, Jordania, Líbano, Siria, la Autoridad Palestina y, por supuesto, Israel se sostienen en el poder solo gracias a la fuerte presencia militar de Estados Unidos y de la OTAN. De no ser por ello, jamás existirían. Los gobiernos de la mayoría de esos países son monarquías o dictaduras militares donde no existen derechos políticos ni libertades democráticas y donde, obviamente, las mujeres viven en la más profunda oscuridad. A estas alturas, por supuesto, la demagogia “progresista” no dirá ni una palabra, pero es difícil creer que la mujer iraní esté más oprimida que la saudí.

Al atacar las instalaciones imperialistas en esos países, Irán está minando las bases de la dominación colonial sobre sus pueblos. No solo debilita la presencia militar de Estados Unidos, sino también, como consecuencia, a los propios regímenes títeres creados para explotar con mayor comodidad sus riquezas. Estos regímenes artificiales y opresores se debilitan de manera marcada a medida que Irán expulsa al imperialismo. El debilitamiento de estos regímenes significa el debilitamiento de la explotación sobre sus pueblos. La expulsión del imperialismo por parte de Irán abre el camino para la caída de todo este sistema de opresión, especialmente de los propios regímenes.

No tardará mucho y los pueblos de todo Oriente Medio gritarán vivas a la República Islámica de Irán. Y las mujeres serán más libres que nunca, siguiendo el ejemplo de la mujer iraní.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Britain is taking an increasingly sinister role in fueling the NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. It seems that as Uncle Sam is growing weary of the slaughter, the British butler is stepping in to take up the mantle.

A large part of that role is ramping up information warfare, or propaganda, which the British state has been a past master of over the centuries. Britain’s military is in such sad disrepair these days that it has to rely on other devices.

In our editorial last week, we looked at how Britain recently tried to poison delicate diplomatic efforts for finding a settlement to the conflict by launching far-fetched claims that Russia had assassinated the late opposition figure Alexei Navalny by injecting him with a lethal South American frog toxin. That psyops bid coincided with the second anniversary of Navalny’s death. A telltale sign is how those fleeting headlines have now vanished into oblivion.

This week, the BBC, the state-owned broadcaster, fired another salvo of propaganda, this time from an interview with Ukraine’s nominal president, Vladimir Zelensky. The interview was timed to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the eruption of hostilities in Ukraine with Russia.

“Zelensky tells BBC Putin has started WW3 and must be stopped,” was the headline.

This was not a sit-down interlocution with some low-level journalist. It was conducted by Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s International Editor.

Zelensky was permitted to spout his slander without any pushback or questioning, which can only mean that the BBC was deliberately serving as a platform to amplify provocative messaging.

The Ukrainian leader, whose presidential mandate expired nearly two years ago and who continues to stay in power solely by martial decree (that is, dictatorship), asserted the usual NATO propaganda narrative that Ukraine is defending the whole of Europe from Russian aggression.

“Putin has already started it [World War Three]… the question is how to stop Russia because Russia wants to impose on the world a different way of life.”

At a later point in the interview, Zelensky urged the United States “to stop the Russians.”

The BBC described Zelensky as a “resilient” wartime leader carrying the burden of his nation. At no point was the former comedian-actor asked about the mounting evidence of embezzlement of Western public money among his ruling circle.

At no point did the BBC question how Ukraine was infiltrated by the CIA, MI6, and other NATO intelligence to install a NeoNazi regime in 2014 to act as a spearhead against Russia that led to the eruption of hostilities in February 2022.

Instead, the British broadcaster indulged in dignifying futile war rhetoric. Zelensky said he believed that Ukraine would win against Russia eventually and that it would reclaim all its territory back to the 1991 borders, implying even the return of Crimea.

This is tantamount to the British undermining ongoing diplomatic talks convened by the Trump administration. Russia is adamant that a peaceful settlement must involve the recognition of Crimea, Donbass, Kherson, and Zaporozhye as historic Russian territories.

In effect, the British are keeping the conflict going by portraying Russia as an evil aggressor with no just cause, and emboldening the Kiev regime to continue the reckless slaughter.

This is deja vu of the inimical intervention by then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in April 2022, when an early peace deal to end the conflict was scuppered by Johnson cajoling the Kiev regime to keep fighting. A weeks-long conflict became a four-year war with millions of casualties.

London’s repeated dangling of the proposal to send troops to Ukraine as part of a “coalition of the willing” is another ploy to sabotage a negotiated peace deal.

Another sinister development was the claim this week by Russian foreign intelligence that Britain and France were endeavoring to covertly ship components of nuclear weapons to Ukraine. Russian lawmakers are formally urging British, French, and German parliamentarians to investigate the grave claims. If the Kiev regime gets its hands on such weapons, then the implications are potentially catastrophic. We have already seen how this regime is prepared to bomb oil infrastructure serving Hungary and Slovakia, and shell Europe’s largest civilian nuclear power plant at Zaporozhye in desperate acts of terroristic blackmail.

While the Americans under Trump seem to realize that the proxy war in Ukraine is a dead-end, not so the British and other European warmongering, Russophobic elites. They need the war to continue because they have invested so much political capital in “justifying” the proxy war that to admit defeat now would be politically disastrous.

The British state is already facing deep inherent crises from its moribund economy and the fallout from the Epstein pedophile scandal, which has shaken the British establishment to its core. The arrest of a senior British royal and a former government minister over their alleged crimes with Epstein’s network is something that the BBC would rather play down, especially as the BBC is itself implicated in the pedophile network through former presenter and royal fixer, Jimmy Savile, as our columnist Raphael Machado noted in an article this week.

The BBC’s interview with the corrupt puppet president Zelensky this week was shameless war propaganda. A case could be made that the state broadcaster is criminally inciting aggression. If the NATO proxy conflict in Ukraine is not settled, there is a looming danger of it spiralling into a nuclear Third World War.

No wonder the Western news media and the BBC in particular are held in such contempt by the public in recent years. The “Beeb’s” advertising slogan is “the world’s most trusted news source.” That needs updating… to the “most busted” news source.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

For discerning observers, there was an obvious attempt this week by Britain to poison a delicate stage in peace negotiations for ending the conflict in Ukraine.

The sabotage effort was as vivid as, well, how should we put it?, as vivid as a brightly colored dart frog from the South American rainforests.

Five European governments signed a joint statement this week that dramatically claimed that Russian opposition figure Sergey Navalny was murdered two years ago in a Siberian prison by poisoning.

The scripted drama and media orchestration always betray a psychological operation intended for public consumption, which warrants the rapid prescription of healthy scepticism as an antidote.

The intergovernmental report claimed that the lethal toxin allegedly used on Navalny was “epibatidine,” which is naturally produced in the skin of the dart frog. Without any evidence, Britain and four other European governments – France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden – asserted that Navalny was murdered by the Russian authorities. Oh, those evil, dastardly Russians… cue the theme music from a James Bond movie!

Moscow rejected the latest claim as “feeblemindedness of fabulists” and condemned the European governments and media for engaging in “necro-propaganda”. Russia claims that Navalny (47) died of natural causes while serving a 19-year prison sentence for extremism and corruption. He was thought to be suffering from congenital ill health and on various medications before he began his penal sentence.

The joint European government statement on Navalny’s alleged poisoning is suspect for several reasons. For a start, it provides no verifiable data on the supposed toxicological analysis or how biomedical samples were obtained two years after Navalny’s death. The timing is also suspicious, coinciding with the Munich Security Conference last weekend and the second anniversary of Navalny’s demise on February 16, 2024, suggesting that the announcement was timed to maximize media attention.

Moreover, this week saw another round of trilateral negotiations between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia on finding a political settlement to the four-year conflict in Ukraine. The talks are at a tricky stage with little traction or trust between Kiev and Moscow.

The exotic frog story seems conveniently loaded to poison the atmosphere in the negotiations.

Tellingly, it is the British government that is the main protagonist in instigating the “necro-propaganda”.

This is true to form. It was the British who confabulated the Novichok poison story about double agent Sergey Skripal in 2018, and the polonium radioactive poisoning of another former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, in a hotel in London in 2006. The Sun tabloid has today dredged up the latter story on the back of the Navalny case. This all speaks of British intel-media orchestration.

In an interview for the BBC state broadcaster, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper claimed that the alleged poisoning of Navalny showed that the Cold War is not over and that “we need to be ready for Russian aggression continuing towards Europe.”

She said that Europe must impose more sanctions on Russia and supply more weapons to Ukraine. Hardly conducive to negotiations.

It is remarkable, too, how Britain is not a member of the European Union, yet London appears entitled to define foreign relations with Russia for the 27-member bloc.

It is also significant that the Americans did not seem to be involved in creating the latest twist in the Navalny narrative. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared to be blindsided by the development, saying, “We don’t have reason to question it,” but he disclosed that the U.S. had not been involved. “These countries came to that conclusion. They coordinated that… it wasn’t our endeavor. Sometimes countries go out and do their thing based on the intelligence [sic] they gathered.”

This has all the hallmarks of Britain’s endeavor, and to be more accurate, it wasn’t based on factual intelligence. It was based on a concocted black propaganda to demonize Russia and derail the peace diplomacy.

Another significant development was that during the trilateral talks in Geneva, Britain’s National Security Advisor, Jonathan Powell, showed up unexpectedly at the venue in the Intercontinental Hotel, where he held unofficial sideline talks with the Americans and Ukrainians. Powell’s visit was unannounced by the British government. He wasn’t formally invited to attend. Why was a senior British intelligence figure hanging around a venue for private trilateral discussions?

Britain has a malicious record of sabotaging peace diplomacy in Ukraine. In April 2022, just when the Ukrainian and Russian sides had worked out an early end to the conflict that erupted in February, the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson suddenly intervened to persuade the Kiev regime to fight on, with promises of more NATO weapons. The baleful result has been a four-year war, a slaughterhouse, with over one million Ukrainian soldiers dead and a large number of Russians.

The Trump administration wants to extricate itself from the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. Washington seems to recognize that the gambit for “strategic defeat” of Russia is a dead-end.

Not so the Europeans, who, for various reasons, are still fixated on prosecuting the proxy war. The European political class seems to be more infected by Russophobia and is incapable of rational thinking or diplomatic engagement with Moscow.

The has-been empire that is Britain is taking a lead role in galvanizing the hostility in Europe towards Russia. It is to that end that London is the main protagonist in the so-called coalition of the willing, along with that other has-been empire, France. The proposal to deploy British and French troops to Ukraine as a “security guarantee” in the event of a peace deal is intended to act as a deal-breaker since Moscow has repeatedly stated that deployment of any NATO troops in Ukraine is unacceptable and non-negotiable.

Britain appears to be taking an increasing role in the covert mentoring of the Ukrainian regime. This week, the British Foreign Office announced the opening of a new embassy office in Lvov, in western Ukraine, which is a stronghold for anti-Russian nationalists and NATO weapons supplies. London said the new office in Lvov was to “expand the UK’s diplomatic [sic] presence in Ukraine as the two countries deepen their relationship.”

Ukraine’s former top military commander, Valery Zalushny, was appointed the ambassador to London in 2024. The “Iron General” is an admirer of Nazi figure Stepan Bandera, and is considered to be a strong contender to replace Vladimir Zelensky, no doubt under British tutelage.

Continuing the war in Europe gives the British state a political purpose and standing among the Europeans. For petty self-aggrandizement, London is exploiting Russophobia.

Concocting propaganda is part of Britain’s toxic agenda. The history of London’s incitement of wars in Europe – not least its sinister role in precipitating World Wars I and II – is consistent with the latest maneuvers to keep fueling the conflict in Ukraine.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Il recente licenziamento di centinaia di giornalisti del Washington Post ha fatto notizia, così come la crisi finanziaria che ha colpito la divisione internazionale della BBC (BBC World Service), suscitando un dibattito sul futuro dell’informazione internazionale.

La maggior parte dei licenziamenti del Post ha riguardato i corrispondenti esteri, indicando che l’informazione internazionale, almeno per i media mainstream, è in declino. Per molti, questa non è una novità. L’informazione internazionale, come area tematica, è stata un settore che i giganti dei media hanno abitualmente ridotto per almeno un decennio, se non di più, in linea con le tendenze degli spettatori che cercano fonti alternative. Potrebbe essere questa la semplice spiegazione del perché questi due giganti dell’informazione internazionale stanno affrontando una crisi esistenziale, o c’è qualcosa di più?

Il BBC World Service è stato per decenni una fonte affidabile di notizie per molti paesi del Sud del mondo sin dalla sua nascita. Per molti in Africa e in Asia, è l’unica fonte di informazioni affidabili su ciò che realmente accade in paesi in cui il giornalismo vero e proprio è stato sradicato da giunte militari preoccupate che una stampa libera possa significare una breve permanenza al potere. Tuttavia, negli ultimi 20 anni, il mondo è cambiato. Internet, naturalmente, ha offerto numerosi canali e voci, e le notizie stesse hanno subito una crisi di identità, superate dall’opinione. Questo processo ha diviso i giganti su cosa fare. Da una parte c’era chi voleva rimanere fermo e continuare con lo stesso prodotto, dall’altra chi voleva stare al passo con i tempi e diventare più trendy. La correttezza politica ha conquistato uno spazio un tempo dominato da uomini bianchi di mezza età e improvvisamente la copertura della BBC World è diventata “locale” e ha perso l’obiettività che aveva un tempo. È stata evidente anche una fuga di cervelli di giornalisti di qualità, come nel caso del Foreign Office di Londra, che la finanzia in parte.

Oltre a tutto ciò, nuovi concorrenti sono entrati nel mercato delle notizie internazionali in lingua inglese, offrendo un nuovo stile di informazione globale: emittenti come RT e CGTN, ad esempio, entrambe con una copertura impressionante nel Sud del mondo. In breve, il BBC World Service ha iniziato a sembrare noioso, fuori dal mondo e non particolarmente rilevante. Anche un recente articolo del Guardian sul finanziamento del servizio ha ammesso che Russia Today e CGTN hanno entrambe guadagnato credibilità negli ultimi anni.

La credibilità è, ovviamente, fondamentale in questo campo. E il pubblico africano e asiatico deve aver notato la sconcertante mancanza di obiettività nel modo in cui la BBC copre i principali conflitti – più recentemente l’Ucraina e quella che i suoi giornalisti continuano ancora oggi a chiamare “la guerra a Gaza” (quando si tratta semplicemente di un genocidio, puro e semplice) – quindi non sorprende che il suo servizio internazionale stia affrontando una crisi di finanziamento senza precedenti.

I giganti dell’informazione internazionale stanno cambiando completamente il loro marchio e, in alcuni casi, stanno emergendo da questo processo senza assomigliare affatto ai fornitori di notizie nel senso tradizionale del termine. Al Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, il suo nuovo proprietario, ha creato difficoltà quando ha rilevato il giornale e ha voluto apportare importanti cambiamenti ideologici, come, ad esempio, interrompere il sostegno aperto a un candidato democratico alla presidenza degli Stati Uniti o rompere con il suo stile consolidato di scrittura di opinioni. Questi cambiamenti hanno portato a un’enorme perdita di entrate e suggeriscono che un marchio che si è costruito su un’ideologia di sinistra avrà difficoltà a finanziarsi senza un nuovo modello rivoluzionario che lo sostituisca. Il problema è che la maggior parte dei proprietari dei media sa che stanno arrivando grandi cambiamenti nel campo dell’informazione internazionale, ma semplicemente non sa come contrastarli. Abbandonare del tutto l’informazione internazionale potrebbe sembrare un po’ avventato per il nuovo proprietario del Post, ma non è così estremo come ciò che hanno fatto altri giganti, ovvero allearsi con governi autocratici in tutto il mondo e posizionarsi come partner di contenuti nel migliore dei casi, o come consulenti di pubbliche relazioni nel peggiore.

Se si osserva come Reuters opera attualmente in paesi come il Marocco, emerge l’immagine di un giornalista locale assunto solo per scrivere articoli positivi sulle attività e le politiche del governo, in perfetta sintonia con i media locali sovvenzionati da Rabat. Da anni ormai Reuters non è in grado di scrivere un solo articolo in Marocco che metta in discussione, anche nei termini più delicati, il modo in cui il governo gestisce il paese. Anche l’AP in Marocco sta seguendo lo stesso modello, spingendosi oltre con la produzione di reportage video che sono vergognosi pacchetti promozionali a favore dell’industria turistica e che promuovono il Marocco come destinazione ideale, con un focus esilarante sulla pesca alla carpa. Il Marocco è un Paese di straordinaria bellezza. Tuttavia, ha bisogno di giornalisti di call center per promuovere il proprio marketing? Questo non è il giornalismo come lo conosciamo. Tuttavia, questo è il modo in cui alcuni giganti dei media credono che sia il futuro e dove si potrebbero ottenere entrate da autocrazie riconoscenti che desiderano alimentare quelle macchine.

Ma l’arte dell’autocensura non è più un’esclusiva dei Paesi del Sud del mondo. L’Occidente ha recuperato terreno. Uno dei temi ricorrenti di cui dovremmo prendere nota è come i giganti dei media occidentali stiano assumendo una nuova generazione di giornalisti che hanno paura di mettere in discussione le narrazioni offerte dal governo di turno. Una generazione di giornalisti fragili che non riescono a sopportare le parole offensive sui social media o le calunnie più subdole dei funzionari governativi che desiderano intimidirli. Il risultato è che ciò che vediamo come notizie in realtà non lo è affatto, ma è una versione edulcorata della narrativa offerta, che è stata riconfezionata per sembrare che sia stata fatta la dovuta diligenza.

La CBS News, che una volta ha dovuto edulcorare il suo servizio su un sensazionale rapporto trapelato dall’industria del tabacco perché la minaccia legale contro di essa superava il valore della rete (una storia trasformata in un superbo film diretto da Michael Mann intitolato The Insider), ora ne è vittima.

Il capo della CBS ha recentemente scioccato molti con la sua offerta in denaro ai dipendenti che non volevano lavorare secondo il suo nuovo piano di edulcorare le notizie e abbandonare gli scoop.

“Dobbiamo iniziare guardando onestamente a noi stessi”, ha detto Bari Weiss in quel momento. “Non stiamo producendo un prodotto che abbastanza persone desiderano”.

Sta dicendo che le grandi notizie non raggiungono lo stesso numero di persone di prima, o sta dicendo che le ripercussioni politiche e/o i minori introiti pubblicitari non ne valgono la pena?

Un produttore che ha lasciato l’azienda ha riassunto bene la situazione, citando la paura come motivo principale. Alicia Hastey ha lamentato che “una nuova visione radicale” ha dato priorità a “una rottura con le norme tradizionali dell’emittenza televisiva per abbracciare quello che è stato descritto come giornalismo ‘eterodosso’”.

“La verità è che l’impegno nei confronti di quelle persone e delle storie che hanno da raccontare sta diventando sempre più impossibile”, ha aggiunto. “Le notizie potrebbero invece essere valutate non solo in base al loro valore giornalistico, ma anche in base alla loro conformità a una serie mutevole di aspettative ideologiche, una dinamica che spinge i produttori e i giornalisti all’autocensura o a evitare narrazioni provocatorie che potrebbero scatenare reazioni negative o titoli sfavorevoli”.

Pur sottolineando che questo sentimento non sminuisce “il talento dei giornalisti che rimangono alla CBS News”, Hastey ha definito questo cambiamento nel settore “così straziante”, aggiungendo: “L’eccellenza che cerchiamo di mantenere è ostacolata dalla paura e dall’incertezza”.

La notizia della CBS, ovviamente, sarà musica per le orecchie di Trump, che attualmente ha citato in giudizio la CBS per il montaggio approssimativo di una sua intervista. Il declino dei media occidentali sarà accolto con favore dalle élite che vedono solo tempi migliori per quanto riguarda il controllo della narrativa mediatica o per allontanare i giornalisti dalle loro pratiche discutibili, come la recente “notizia” nel Regno Unito secondo cui sarebbe stata la Russia, e non Israele, la mente dietro il racket pedofilo di Epstein, solo per citare un esempio. Dovremmo sorprenderci che il governo britannico, che proprio l’altro giorno ha approvato altri 500 milioni di sterline in aiuti militari all’Ucraina, non riesca a trovare i 100 milioni di sterline che il Ministero degli Esteri di solito assegna al World Service (come parte del suo contributo)? Dovremmo sorprenderci che i media occidentali si avvicinino sempre più al governo e alle sue agenzie di intelligence, che li aiutano a produrre clip di propaganda simili a quelle mostrate alla popolazione durante la Seconda Guerra Mondiale?

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The Alexei Navalny story presented to western journalists at Munich might as well have been a James Bond movie script for its lack of facts and romantic folly.

In recent pieces, I have thrown a spotlight on the demise of journalism – on what journalism actually is, or was, and how it has transformed its own core identity into something completely different today. We previously witnessed the head of CBC news recently admitting that old-school journalism which produced “scoops” that were lapped up by a broad public base which wanted media to hold elites to account, is no longer popular. She claimed that there just aren’t the numbers out there who are glued to their sets watching 60 Minutes investigative journalism shows of previous times, watching today. I personally find this claim hard to believe as, in the same breath, the same media boss justifies a new style of journalism which aligns itself much more to the narrative of the government of the day. Hard to imagine people prefer the latter. In reality, what she is probably trying to say is that for big media to survive and to cling on to the few remaining advertisers who will keep it from being wiped out altogether, it needs to get into bed with the deep state and forget about the truth altogether. Who needs the truth, after all? It’ll only bring you stress, make you angry and probably crash your car on the way home from the grocery store, creating a huge fight with your wife and ruining the weekend.

The truth is so old-fashioned, so out of touch with modern foibles and is practically considered a South American poison which can kill you within seconds. Hardly surprising that a new UK government department which censors journalists’ pieces has a whole new lexicon of nasty words to label fringe, independent journalists sticking to the old working methods of journalism.

The truth was always the starting point for journalism. It was always easier to remember and was always an excellent grounding agent for journalists who had lost the plot of the story they were working on. It can sometimes be terrifyingly awkward and often is just a plain son of a bitch for governments, media, watchdogs, the deep state and anyone who gives a damn about democracy.

But it was always important.

Yet these days we are working in a new environment entirely and journalists are under enormous pressure to simply get words out there. Any words. Words might as well be tins of baked beans stacked up in crates loaded onto containers destined for consumption. The truth is simply no longer part of any interest or working consciousness of mainstream media operators.

And of course, this works as a new support mechanism for sloppier, lazier and increasingly inept government officials, elected or otherwise. Never before have we been ruled by such underperforming, lame government ministers than today, who need a servile media to manipulate to get the perceived truth out there unchallenged by the actual truth.

In this new world media order, anything is possible. Any story can be manufactured as the mechanism of fact-checking has been long abandoned. I personally gave up trying to write international news stories decades ago when the biggest hurdle I had to face in getting those investigations published was the hilarious demand from younger editors to get the thrust of the piece checked by the UK Foreign Office press department! This demand was always given without irony whatsoever by a 25-year-old desk editor who was simply not programmed to be told by a journalist of my experience that “this would be a total waste of time as those c—-s at the Foreign Office just lie through their teeth and will deny it all”. Many stories just got blocked by the fact that the official denial from the press office of the Foreign Office was enough to scare the editor of the day into not publishing it and not wasting any time on it from that point onwards. This practice started in the late 90s and was intensified in recent years by the Foreign Office when they realised how effective it was in simply blocking all good stories about Syria, Iraq, and Libya.

And so in this environment, the journalist who phones in the story in 2015 that the US government is funding about a dozen Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria, or that in fact Assad is not dropping chlorine on his own people but rather that the terror groups that the West is backing are doing it so as to fake the news, is laughed at. At best he is told to send his allegations to the Foreign Office press department who, of course, issue a gobbledygook statement dismissing it as lies or propaganda.

In reality, British journalists wrote up the Assad story hundreds of times without a scrap of evidence simply because, by contrast, when the government of the day has a narrative to put out there it doesn’t need backing up with any kind of evidence. And so, Assad dropping chemical weapons on his own people becomes a fact, which then gets established and enshrined as a fact for other journalists to propagate. Once journalists get comfortable with a narrative, as we saw in the Syria war, any kind of amateur, faked news can be fed into their computer email boxes and it gets processed within hours and put out as hard news which has been checked.

The BBC during the same period presented us with real video footage of school children being burned alive during one of those chemical attacks. Horrific images of children screaming in agony with their eyes rolling madly as those possessed by the devil.

But the devil was in the detail, or lack of it. In truth, that infamous report was entirely fake and produced by Sunni rebels on the Western payroll in Syria who knew it would have a huge impact with Western audiences. The rebels simply directed the kids to act while they filmed it, then sent the raw footage to the BBC “correspondents” in Beirut who were delighted to make a package about it, without actually bothering to fact-check.

The manufactured consent of western journalists now is at an all-time scandalous low point. Practically everything they are writing about international stories is dictated by the governments who control them. There are just too many stories to list but of course the big ones are legends and have been enshrined for journalism students to study in future generations. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, Assad uses chemical weapons on his own people, 9/11 twin towers were brought down by two jet airliners, Lockerbie bombing was carried out by Libya, the genocide in Gaza is a war against terror. The list is endless. But in more recent times, a big one which has gained traction is “the Russians are coming to invade us”.

We are told that the Russians invaded Ukraine as they were bored one afternoon and it was something to do. Almost. British journalists have been spectacularly incapable of nuance since the beginning of the Ukraine war and have avoided at all costs pointing out a few awkward facts, like how the US overthrew the elected government in Ukraine in 2014 and have been preparing to make it a NATO country, armed with western NATO equipment, while allowing ethnic Russian-speaking Ukrainians to be bombed in their own houses. Or how a peace treaty which the West signed with Russia was actually just BS and no one in the West had any intention of respecting it.

But these days, the desperation levels of western elites over Ukraine are getting to new dizzy heights. Ukraine is losing ground in the war and NATO bosses are struggling to explain this. And so there are confused, mixed messages. One moment one NATO figure will say that the Russians have lost record-breaking numbers of troops and their ammo levels are desperately low, while in the same breath another NATO goon, or even EU leader, will put out the “Russians are about to invade and to eat your babies’ heads”. This absurd contradiction is still out there and being repeated. The NATO boss himself, Mark Rutte, who once called Donald Trump “daddy,” is a buffoon of the highest order and stands tall and alone in this competition of putting his foot in his mouth. He recently spoke disparagingly of Russia’s foreign minister while then calling the Russian army a “garden snail”. Of course, no journalist in the room was going to ask him how he connected the banal logic of Russia being a great threat when it invades Europe to it being so meniscal and pathetic that its own army can’t even make a cheese sandwich to throw at its enemy on the battlefield. Or for that matter, if the Russian army was so insignificant, how does the NATO boss explain that with trillions of dollars of money and military kit, the West along with the Ukrainian army can’t defeat it?

Awkward questions. Something that journalists don’t ask any more. Same can be said for fact-checking and looking for an expert. It’s just no longer the done thing.

Take the example of Alexei Navalny and the preposterous story of him being poisoned while in jail by a frog toxin. The stuff of James Bond movies, you might say. But how is it possible that not one western journalist can be sceptical about these latest allegations which were timed to be presented to western hacks gathered at the Munich Conference? Journalists used to be sceptical about any information freely handed to them. We used to ask obvious questions like “why would Putin go to such extraordinary lengths to murder a political dissident when, one, he’s already banged up in jail and two, there must be thousands of other more practical ways to bump him off?”. Why the frog juice? And secondly, where are the experts? I’m old enough to remember whenever such a story was presented, the first reaction from any journalist would be to look for an expert. Funny how in the tome of British articles pointing the finger at Putin and his South American frogs, not one single expert was asked for his opinion about the validity of this claim. If they were, perhaps some of them might merely point out that the symptoms that Navalny had just before his death are completely at odds with what the frog toxin does when it is in contact with its victim. Or secondly, that for the dose to be administered, it would literally have to be harvested from thousands of frogs? Or perhaps most interestingly, that there is no data at all of the toxin remaining in someone’s body after two years. Just minor points that my colleagues might have included in their pieces if they had bothered calling an expert from any number of fine universities in the UK.

The Navalny story is just that. A story which will never get checked and so becomes fact, just like the recent idea floated by the UK press that Epstein’s honey trap operation was in fact an operation by Russian intelligence. No facts offered, no experts consulted. Media now is really just a stenographer of the deep state’s lies and the poison frog toxin story is a good example of how far this nefarious disinformation campaign can be taken, as is the Russian link to Epstein. The British press, it would seem, is in love with James Bond and his ‘From Russia With Love’ role and for the moment are happy to indulge themselves with this Alice-In-Wonderland space where a really good yarn is what makes a good story. Oh James.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Mario Sechi, con l’editoriale di domenica 15 febbraio 2026 dal titolo “La lezione americana” con cui ha impiastricciato “Libero”, da lui diretto con buona pace dei suoi lettori, ci ha spiegato che la destra e la sinistra europee sono la stessa melma antirussa e anticinese, ripetendo le medesime baggianate del socialdemocratico Josep Borrell, il già Alto Rappresentante dell’Unione Europea per gli Affari Esteri e la politica di sicurezza, il quale qualche tempo addietro vedeva nel Vecchio Continente il giardino fiorito attorniato dai barbari. Tuttavia “i barbari”, ovvero il Sud Globale, ritengono i governi europei vergognosamente impresentabili, rappresentanti di una delle peggiori pagine della storia dell’umanità, dietro la farsa della democrazia infatti l’Occidente collettivo ha depredato e rubato dal 1945 le materie prime energetiche, minerarie e alimentari delle loro nazioni, in continuità con il precedente miserevole ed esecrabile colonialismo.

Oggi Cina e Russia guidano la costruzione di un nuovo mondo multipolare e di pace, costruito sul rispetto delle nazioni e dei popoli e fondato su scambi economici, politici rispettosi delle tradizioni e delle culture, pagando quelle stesse materie prime infinite volte di più, tanto che, non accettando l’Occidente collettivo il libero mercato, organizza guerre civili, come nella Repubblica Democratica del Congo, per rubare il coltan che non vuole pagare più di quanto i cinesi e i russi corrispondano.

L’inizio di Sechi è degno delle chiacchiere da bar, su quanto siano bravi e buoni gli statunitensi: “Winston Churchill nelle sue memorie scrisse che «gli Stati Uniti sono come una gigantesca caldaia. Una volta acceso il fuoco, non c’è limite alla potenza che può generare». Erano i giorni dell’attacco giapponese a Pearl Harbor e, di fronte alla tragedia, egli pensò: «Abbiamo vinto la guerra». In quel momento di estremo dolore, il primo ministro inglese capì che la Germania hitleriana sarebbe caduta di fronte alla «gigantesca caldaia». L’Europa, adagiata nel sogno di una eterna “belle époque” post 1945, ha dimenticato la lezione del leone d’Inghilterra, siamo qui, siamo liberi, siamo europei (senza -ismo, vi prego) perché è arrivato il Settimo Cavalleggeri. Che Dio perdoni gli smemorati di Bruxelles, campioni d’ipocrisia.”

Sechi è sbadato e smemorato al pari della discendente dei nazisti che oggi occupa il posto di Borrell a Bruxelles, la signora Kallas, tutti e due esaltano il mezzo milione di caduti statunitensi e i trecentomila britannici, si scordano ventisette milioni di sovietici e venti milioni di cinesi sacrificatisi eroicamente per la libertà del mondo e dell’Europa. Le tragiche e dolorose cifre spiegano a perfezione chi abbia dato il maggior contributo per la Liberazione dal nazifascismo e dall’imperialismo nipponico.

Sechi tenta poi maldestramente il tono elegiaco, ma deraglia riprendendo la citazione di Rubio in merito all’aggressione occidentale contro la Corea negli anni ‘50 del Novecento e contro l’Afghanistan agli albori di questo secolo, due pagine buie di cui vergognarsi: “Ieri Marco Rubio nel suo discorso alla Conferenza sulla sicurezza a Monaco ci ha ricordato che questa potenza nasce dalla storia e dalla cultura, dalla visione e dal pragmatismo, dal ranch e dal grattacielo, dalle grandi praterie e dai grandi laghi, dal senso dell’urgenza e dall’azione, dai pionieri del New England e dalla fanteria spedita a liberare l’Europa. Da noi occidentali, europei e americani, nella scoperta e nella costruzione, in pace e in guerra, perché «abbiamo sanguinato e siamo morti fianco a fianco sui campi di battaglia da Kapyong a Kandahar». Il grandioso intervento di Rubio ha “rimesso la chiesa al centro del villaggio”, ha ristabilito l’ordine delle cose, ha spiazzato i sonnambuli europei fino al risveglio e all’applauso a scena aperta. In un battito di mani è evaporato il racconto dei giornali italiani su Friedrich Merz della Germania che tagliava i ponti con gli Stati Uniti, una balla colossale – impaginata solo in chiave anti-meloniana dopo l’intesa tra Roma e Berlino -, bastava leggere l’intero intervento del cancelliere tedesco.”

Sechi cerca poi di buttarla sul patetico – affettivo prima di passare all’escatologico: “Allora l’America ci vuole bene, si saranno detti a Monaco nell’ascoltare Rubio. Ancora una volta senza capire che il problema non è una questione sentimentale, ma prima filosofica e poi politica: saper riconoscere il bene e il male.”

Sperticandosi quindi gongolante della definizione per lui ineluttabile del male e dei cattivi, guarda caso russi e cinesi: “Da che parte stai nella nuova Guerra Fredda, figliolo? Con la Russia e con la Cina? Tanti auguri, presto o tardi perderai la tua libertà. Perché i cattivi esistono e contano sull’utile idiota travolto dalla passione per gli Aya tollah e ogni risma di sanguinario dittatore, sui progressisti senza patria e onore, sugli ignoranti colti (leggere William Hazlitt), sulla claque per Francesca Albanese, sugli antisemiti, sui pusher di menzogne e sullo scemo da talk show.”

Infatuato da un delirio amoroso verso la bandiera a stelle e strisce, invoca lubricamente le cannoniere della NATO, che lui immagina come una tenera mamma vegliante sul riposo del pargoletto: “Abbiamo vinto alla lotteria della storia l’inestimabile “pax americana” e non sappiamo più che farcene. Rubio pronuncia la parola che a molti oggi sembra un’eresia, «Occidente», chiama con il loro nome gli errori e gli orrori, ribadisce che l’amministrazione Trump è un progetto per il futuro (che costruiranno con noi o senza di noi, sperando che prevalga il «noi») e non uno sguardo indietro al passato «delle cannoniere» (che per fortuna esistono e vegliano sulla nostra libertà). La standing ovation riservata al Segretario di Stato non deve ingannarci, per molti leader europei le sue parole suonano come una minaccia, per gli intellettuali di complemento sono un’intollerabile sfida alle loro rovinose certezze, sono una chiamata alle armi, e non intendo solo quelle degli eserciti, mi riferisco all’intelligenza e alla cultura (politica e non solo) che sono il fondamentale nutrimento per interpretare l’essenza del nuovo mondo (l’America) che sta forgiando un mondo nuovo (la visione dell’amministrazione Trump).”

A complemento, ecco che Sechi indugia sorridente, esaltandosi nel vedere, solo lui poveretto, genialità in ogni angolo della Casa Bianca, tutta protesa contro il male rappresentato come il solito da Russia e Cina, quindi in preda a un vago delirio estatico chiama questa vecchia roba, ovvero l’imperialismo unipolare statunitense, “un nuovo ordine mondiale” e verrebbe da ridere se non si sapesse, ahimè, che ci crede davvero: “Pochi hanno afferrato la forza trasformatrice, la qualità delle persone che fanno parte del team di Trump. I critici in servizio permanente, mai colti dal dubbio, si sono concentrati sul ciuffo, ma non vedono il cervello. Trump ha messo su una squadra di prim’ordine che ha capacità e visione, ha un programma e lo sta realizzando. Alla Casa Bianca pensano a un nuovo ordine mondiale, certamente, che scoperta, perché vedono il disordine incombente e la minaccia delle dittature, della Cina, della Russia, dei tagliagole di Hamas e dell’Iran, uno Stato terrorista che insegue ancora il progetto della bomba atomica.”

Poi arriva la tirata d’orecchie agli europei, come nella celebre favola paragonati alla bella addormentata e quindi un’imbarazzante idea degli Stati Uniti che sarebbero stati costruiti “sulla Bibbia, la forca e la Colt”, una specie di versione a stelle e strisce del mussoliniano “libro e moschetto”, fondamentali a detta del dittatore di Predappio, per fare il fascista perfetto: “A Washington sono svegli, il sonno abbonda nelle cancellerie europee, intrise di boria e ignoranza al punto da negare l’evidenza di un insostituibile scudo americano per la nostra sicurezza. Dopo aver fallito, ci spiegano come ripartire da capo, eccezionale operazione di trasformismo, senza mai dire che tutto questo costa. Roger Kimball, editore e direttore di The New Criterion, una raffinata rivista culturale conservatrice, qualche giorno fa ricordando che «George Washington aveva Thomas Jefferson come Segretario di Stato e Alexander Hamilton come Segretario del Tesoro», ha scritto che Rubio e Bessent «sono emersi come tra i migliori segretari della storia. Guardare Rubio istruire il Congresso e i media ottusi su questioni serie come Venezuela, Iran e Gaza ricorda ciò che disse Orazio sullo scopo della poesia: dovrebbe deliziare oltre che istruire». Il piccolo establishment europeo si è auto – inchiodato alla descrizione dei cowboy (che hanno costruito l’America, en passant, la prima potenza mondiale, partendo dalla Bibbia, la forca e la Colt). Per nostra fortuna Giorgia Meloni è tra coloro che hanno colto e anticipato lo spirito del tempo, i temi sono quelli giusti, basta guardare indietro ai suoi interventi, non solo da Presidente del Consiglio, per apprezzare la freschezza e attualità delle sue intuizioni. Non è un caso che i libri di Meloni siano tradotti in America, l’ultimo (“Giorgia’s Vision”) andrà in libreria in aprile, con la prefazione del vicepresidente JD Vance.”

Preso dallo slancio, Sechi si getta in ginocchio e chiude con uno sperticato e aureolare elogio alla Presidentessa del Consiglio, vedendo poi un filo invisibile unire le rovine della Roma imperiale ai palazzi dell’imperialismo declinante: “C’è assonanza e stima per la leader che in Europa rappresenta quella rivoluzione conservatrice che ha abbattuto il totem di un progressismo in declino, rimesso in gioco la politica, chiuso l’era dei governi d’emergenza e delle alchimie di palazzo, restituito lo scettro al popolo con una vittoria elettorale chiara, un Parlamento con una maggioranza forte e un governo stabile. Sono conquiste che Meloni ha rafforzato in questi anni a Palazzo Chigi con una netta scelta di campo, giocando la partita nello spazio vitale che si chiama Occidente e si estende da Roma a Washington, una linea che congiunge i due Campidogli, una parabola comune, dove le divergenze non possono mai essere differenze incolmabili. Siamo tutti occidentali, un tempo si scriveva perfino che «siamo tutti americani», ma in troppi hanno dimenticato l’11 settembre 2001, il significato di quella data. Marco Rubio in modo magistrale ha mostrato il libro, la mappa, la rotta di un gruppo di nuovi pionieri d’America che ha deciso di cavalcare la storia, non subirla in attesa del “The End”.

Dopo aver letto Mario Sechi, non si può che cercare rifugio in Dante Alighieri: “Ahi serva Italia, di dolore ostello, nave sanza nocchiere in gran tempesta, non donna di provincie, ma bordello!”, il suo era un Purgatorio letterario, gli italiani, a quanto pare, sono purtroppo condannati a un purgatorio vero.