Promoting War, Opposing Peace, How Establishment Media Operate
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman)
Establishment media never met a US war of aggression against a nonbelligerent/nonthreatening state they didn't wholeheartedly cheerlead.
When the US goes to war or in their run-up, they operate as virtual Pentagon press agents — complicit in US high crimes of war and against humanity by their actions.
Since Iranians ended a generation of US-imposed fascist dictatorship in 1979, establishment media have been militantly hostile toward Tehran.
They joined the anti-Iran chorus in support of the Trump regime's war by other means on the country, targeting its economy, harming its ordinary people most — reporting US disinformation, Big Lies and fake news about the country.
Not a shred of credible evidence suggests Iran seeks nuclear weapons, a nation at peace with its neighbors that never attacked another country preemptively, threatening none now, fostering cooperative relations worldwide.
No evidence suggests Iran had anything to do with striking key Saudi oil facilities on September 14 — what Yemeni Houthis claimed responsibility for.
The NYT is militantly hostile toward nonbelligerent Iran. In one article, it contradicted itself about the week ago attack on Saudi oil facilities, saying:
The "attack (came) from an unknown source, evidently using missiles and drones…Trump…blames Iran," adding:
"The Iranian government ordered it because it views Trump as a weak negotiator who is afraid of war."
More meaningless mumbo jumbo rubbish followed, including nonsense that "Iran may be betting that Trump will back down (by) escalating the situation…"
It's hard believing editors allow the above rubbish to be published, not remotely reflecting reality.
Separately, the Times slammed Trump for not retaliating after Iran downed its spy drone last June — failing to explain it entered Iranian airspace illegally, didn't respond to multiple demands to leave, before IRGC forces acted in self-defense, the legal right of all nations to hostile actions.
Attacking Iran earlier or any time preemptively is naked aggression under international law, ignored by the Times in its piece.
The Times: "Three months later, some of Mr. Trump's own allies fear the failure to follow through was taken by Iran as a sign of weakness, emboldening it to attack oil facilities in Saudi Arabia this month (sic)."
Instead of stressing there's no evidence supporting the claim, the Times also failed to ask obvious questions:
What was a US spy drone doing in Iranian airspace illegally? Why did it ignore repeated Iranian demands to leave? The incident was a hostile US action the Times and other establishment media failed to explain.
The Times quoted far-right official of the undemocratic Foundation for Defense of Democracies Reuel Gerecht, saying Trump's "repeated failure to militarily respond to Iranian actions has been a serious mistake."
Anything advancing peace over war warrants high praise, a notion rejected by the Times and other hawkish US media.
Trump's reluctance to strike Iran militarily hasn't deterred his aggression in multiple theaters. Nor did it soften his all-out war on Tehran by other means — the same high crimes committed against Venezuelan social democracy, the real thing absent in the West.
CNN, the most distrusted name in television propaganda masquerading as news, slammed nonexistent Iranian "malign activity (not) thinning out," claiming what doesn't exist is "expanding."
The Wall Street Journal falsely claimed Yemeni Houthis "warned foreign diplomats that Iran is preparing a follow-up strike to the missile and drone attack that crippled Saudi Arabia's oil industry a week ago" — citing unnamed sources that lied or don't exist.
On Saturday, Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdul Salam debunked the Journal's Big Lie. Another followed, saying:
"In recent days, (so-called) people familiar with the matter said Iran let Houthi fighters know that they wanted their support in carrying out more attacks across the region (sic)."
The London Guardian accused Trump of "dithering over Iran," saying it "makes America look weak and foolish" — promoting war like other Western chickhawk media instead of denouncing aggression.
Anti-Iran propaganda war wages. Without establishment media support, it would fall flat.
Unexplained is why nonbelligerent Iran at peace with its neighbors would change policy.
What possible strategic aim could it achieve by becoming an aggressor, giving the US a pretext for possible war?
Iran would have much to lose and nothing to gain by attacking the Saudis or another regional country.
What's obvious goes unreported by establishment media, falsely blaming Iran instead about what no evidence suggests it had anything to do with.
VISIT MY NEW WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at email@example.com.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."