One U.S. publication just covered the stalled Iran nuclear deal talks honestly. Another ran a distorted, fearmongering article. Guess which one was the New York Times?
A desperate Donald Trump might attack Iran to restore his popularity. Would the mainstream U.S. media let him get away with it?
Elizabeth Warren’s very-carefully modulated position on Israel/Palestine– praising Israel as a great ally and liberal democracy but also saying she might condition aid over annexation of the West Bank — reflects official liberal thinking, and the J Street line.
The U.S. mainstream media’s shoddy, dishonest reporting about the Iran Crisis continues. The media refuses to closely examine the Trump administration’s latest justification for killing Qasem Soleimani — that the Iranian general was responsible for the deaths of “thousands of U.S. troops.”
In its recklessness and brutality, Trump’s escalating drone war shows just how dangerous it is when a president claims the legal authority to kill in secret and no one can stop him. We can thank the Obama administration for that.
Here’s yet another example of bias in U.S. media coverage of the Iran Crisis: using the expression “Iran’s proxies” to describe various militia forces across the Mideast, instead of the accurate “Iran’s allies.” Some of these forces arose due to Israeli aggression.
Reports have emerged that Israel provided key intelligence to the the US in the lead up to the Soleimani assassination. Now there are questions whether Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah could be the next US target
One of the disgusting features of the U.S. effort to provoke conflict with Iran is the widespread use of the euphemism “take him out” instead of “kill” or “assassinate” to characterize the death of General Qasem Soleimani.
Exceptions to the mainstream voices who see the U.S. as playing a beneficent role in the Middle East, Geraldine Brooks and Bernie Sanders cite American war crimes and call for diplomacy, not assassinations.