For almost two weeks now, the US and Israel have been waging war on Iran. What Washington initially presented as a military campaign that would swiftly alter the strategic balance and put Tehran in a vulnerable position has proven to be far more complex. Over the past months, the White House has maintained that Iran could be on the brink of total defeat by the end of the first, or at most, the second day of a conflict. Apparently, the American side expected a rapid dismantling of Iran’s capabilities and a serious destabilization of its government. However, recent developments tell a different story.
02d Agit-Prop
FRANCE 24’s François Picard is pleased to welcome Dr. Rouzbeh Parsi, Adjunct Senior Lecturer at Lund University in Sweden. According to Dr. Parsi, the current political situation in Iran should be approached with caution, too much attention is being paid to the potential rise of Mojtaba Khamenei. Yet the Islamic Republic is not a system built around a single person, especially during a time of war. Decision-making power lies with institutions such as the Revolutionary Guards and the broader security establishment.
This institutional dynamic also complicates efforts to understand Khamenei himself, explains Dr. Parsi. Whether he intends to maintain continuity with the political baseline established by his late father or eventually chart his own course remains difficult to assess. For now, the Islamic Republic is fundamentally focused on survival, and that struggle will likely shape both internal politics and foreign policy.
Militarily, there is also a tendency among outside observers to misinterpret Iranian behaviour. A reduction in missile launches, for example, should not automatically be interpreted as a lack of capability. It may simply reflect a deliberate strategic approach aimed at weakening defensive systems first, thereby increasing the effectiveness of later strikes. Ultimately, Iran’s objective appears to be political as much as military: to demonstrate that attacking Iran carries costs, and to ensure that any eventual negotiations with the United States occur under more serious terms than those previously attempted. And so, Dr. Parsi argues, “the Iranians are going to play this game their own way”.
With jagged cliffs rising from the Arabian Sea, the Strait of Hormuz is striking in its scenery — and these days, its emptiness. This resource superhighway, which normally hosts more than a hundred of the world’s largest oil and liquid natural gas (LNG) tankers every day, has seen no more than a handful all week.
They are the brave ones, daring to run these front lines where U.S. and Iranian naval forces face off. At least 14 commercial vessels have suffered some kind of violent incident, leaving at least eight mariners dead.
Confusion on whether Iran truly needed only “two weeks to four weeks” to make a nuclear weapon, as President Donald Trump suggested on Monday, hangs over the ongoing U.S. and Israeli war on the Persian Gulf nation. Nuclear experts call this claim unlikely—but the confusion may stem from some basics of atomic chemistry.
“There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon,” says Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. His comment echoed those of other experts after the war’s start, as well as statements from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi at that time and in 2025 and last year’s “threat assessment” report by U.S. intelligence agencies.
According to an IAEA estimate, as of June 2025, Iran possessed 441 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium, where the percentage refers to the share of the isotope uranium 235 (U 235) found in the material. That would be enough for 10 nuclear weapons if the material could be enriched further to full 90 percent weapons-grade concentrations, according to the IAEA. That further enrichment would take a matter of weeks in a fully functioning Iranian nuclear complex, perhaps explaining the time line within Trump’s declaration.
Tuesday on MS NOW’s “The Briefing,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said President Donald Trump would try to “seize ballot boxes’ to “subvert the vote” in the midterm elections.
Host Jen Psaki said, “The administration subpoenaed records from 2020 from Arizona. We know that’s not about changing the outcome of the 2020 election. We know that they’ve already gone through that. It’s obviously about 2026. What do you make of that and what’s your level of concern about it?”
Schiff said, “I think the subpoenas in Arizona, America, Maricopa County, the FBI raid in Georgia, this is all trying to establish some kind of phony predicate for them to say that the election system is so flawed, the machines don’t work. There’s too much fraud and absentee ballots that come November, they can nationalize the elections, they can somehow outlaw absentee ballots, or they can seize ballot boxes and they will have some pretext to do it. So this is, I think, part of laying the foundation to interfere with, suppress the vote or ultimately subvert the vote. They understand, as we do in the Democratic Party, that they are likely to get clobbered in the midterms and, you know, they’re willing to resort to anything.”
It’s the Great Fear that is just eating away at the poor folks at Politico. It was first expressed by that periodical in December when they suddenly realized that with so many Democrats (and none clearly in the lead) that in the open primary for governor of California that it was possible that with only two Republicans in that race, that both of them could end up in first and second place due to the Democrats splitting up the rest of the votes among themselves.
A couple of months later in February that fear not only did not go away but intensified with poor Politico going full delusional to the extent of pretending that if they only concentrated on the top two Democrat candidates while absurdly ignoring the two GOP candidates whom many polls are showing in the first and second spot, thus qualifying to run against each other in the general election, that maybe the problem would just go away. The result of completely ignoring the Republican candidates who could both qualify for the general election earned Politico some well deserved mockery.
DORAL, Florida — President Donald Trump told House Republicans Monday he had one overriding legislative priority for 2026. Then they spent Tuesday talking about just about anything else.
Trump’s demand for passage of an updated SAVE America Act — a GOP elections bill that the House has advanced two versions of already — was met with less than complete enthusiasm from leaders gathered for the annual Republican policy retreat.
Speaker Mike Johnson and other senior lawmakers gave the unmistakable impression they now consider that bill to be a Senate problem — even after Trump insisted the House take it up a third time and add on more controversial provisions, such as a near-total ban on mail voting.
That post, however, quickly drew heavy backlash for appearing to downplay the attempted bombing that took place.
CNN later deleted the post, then apologized, writing on X, “A post regarding the two individuals arrested for throwing homemade bombs outside of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home failed to reflect the gravity of the incident thereby breaching the editorial standards we require for all our reporting. It has therefore been deleted.”
Balat was seen on video throwing the explosive device that failed to detonate. At the same time, he yelled “Allahu Akbar.” Kayumi and Balat indicated to police that they carried out the actions because they had pledged allegiance to ISIS, according to the criminal complaint.
Anytime something happens in these United States of America that makes the left look bad, we on the right snark to each other about how the media will gloss over it, glorify the perpetrators, and make the progressive in question seem less bad. Like the two ISIS-inspired bombers in NYC. Sure, attempting to people up with and IED is bad, but the real villains were the tens of people Islamophobiaing in the street. Even by our usual low standards for the journalsiming industrial complex, this CNN framing is something.
Terrorists inspired by ISIS? Meh. Emir Balat and Ibraham Kayumi were just two teens who, on an unseasonably sunny day, made a mistake that could change their lives forever.
Two Pennsylvania teenagers crossed into New York City Saturday morning for what could’ve been a normal day enjoying the city during abnormally warm weather.
But in less than an hour, their lives would drastically change as the pair would be arrested for throwing homemade bombs during an anti-Muslim protest outside of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home. Here’s what we know so far.
Kristen Welker’s softball Sunday interview on NBC with the Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi reminded everyone again of an anti-American double standard. The liberals inside newsrooms put enormous pressure on interviewers to question Trump fiercely, while representatives of mass-murdering Islamist regimes get open-ended softballs.
According to CNN’s Data Analyst Harry Enten, you should not be surprised that people who have served in the military largely approve of the U.S. strikes on Iran when compared to voters overall.
He cites a Fox News Poll:
Among Republicans, more than 8 in 10 approve of the current U.S. use of force, while only 6 in 10 say the president’s actions on Iran are making the U.S. safer.
Nearly 8 in 10 Democrats disapprove of the U.S. strikes and think things are less safe because of Trump’s performance, while 6 in 10 or more independents think the same on both counts.
Among voters who have served in the military, 59% approve of the U.S. strikes on Iran (39% disapprove). Compared to voters overall, who say the U.S. is less safe by a wide margin, veterans are more closely divided on the question of whether Trump’s actions have made the country safer (37%) or less safe (44%).
Hours after an Oliver Darcy underling screeched Sunday about CBS News’s social media platforms as having gone full MAGA for covering unsavory stories such as a Jewish Insider investigation into the radical social media history of New York City’s first lady, Monday’s CBS Mornings showed the liberal media are unsurprisingly not living in reality as the newscast welcomed far-left Texas senatorial candidate James Talarico (D) for an embarrassingly soft interview.
In just over six minutes, the co-hosts never offered an adversarial question to Talarico and strayed from the network’s own role in arguably endorsing Talarico’s primary campaign or any mention of the litany of radical statements over the course of his young life, such as these compiled in one convenient mash-up by our friends at Conservative War Machine:
SUPERCUT: Some of Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico’s most radical views:
“You can’t call yourself a Christian and destroy God’s creation with greenhouse gases.”
“I love … the trans children.”
“No need to sit and cry over your whiteness or your masculinity. Use… pic.twitter.com/JXMrz7spRz
— Conservative War Machine (@WarMachineRR) March 9, 2026
There are times when the Elitist Media Sunday shows will staff their talking head panels in such a way so as to at least present the pretense of viewpoint diversity. Not so today, with the war in Iran being the focal point of coverage on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
Watch as ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce, at her Mary Bruciest, dumps all over the ongoing operation and its underlying rationale:
MARTHA RADDATZ: Mary, I want to start with you. You’ve heard the explanation from the president and his cabinet about why they started this war, why it will end, and how. But is anything clearer now?
MARY BRUCE: Martha, the explanations from this administration and the president have been absolutely head-spinning this week. I mean, I think the clearest explanation from the president is probably the broadest at this point, which is him saying that this was an evil regime and that something had to be done. He said, quote, “Somebody had to do it”.
But we have heard vastly different explanations and contradictions about why now, was — what was the imminent threat? The president said it was his opinion — quote, “his opinion” — that Iran was going to strike first. But we have seen no evidence of that and they’ve offered wildly different explanations for what comes next.
Republicans on Capitol Hill are preparing to confront a staggering price tag for the war in the Middle East after closed-door briefings this week detailed the rapid consumption of expensive munitions and the lack of any firm deadline for the end of the military campaign.
Asked how much the Iran offensive would cost, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) didn’t sugarcoat it.
“A lot,” he replied.
Right-wing media attack James Talarico for his Christian faith and beliefs: “He’s not a minister, he’s blasphemous” Media Matters for America
from news.google.com
Iran claims Revolutionary Guards drones hit US aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln Moneycontrol.com
from news.google.com
U.S. negotiations with Iran broke down after Iranian officials openly declared their intention to enrich uranium to levels capable of producing nuclear weapons, according to President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
Witkoff revealed the details in an interview with Fox News, describing a moment during the talks when Iranian negotiators made their position unmistakably clear.
“The Iranians made it clear from the start that they believe they have an undeniable right to enrich all the uranium they possess,” Witkoff said.
Initially, I thought this was a different publication. How did The Washington Post publish this, especially from the editorial board? It was a solid op-ed emphasizing the importance of keeping the agency fully operational during a period of increased terrorist reprisals, due to our air campaign against Iran. It also pointed out that the Democrats’ strategy—trying to limit ICE raids via more legal procedures like judicial warrants—is essentially ineffective. They acknowledged it’s not practical. Additionally, the recent shutdown doesn’t affect the deportation raids, as they’ve been funded by the Big, Beautiful Bill (via WaPo):
…it’s embarrassing that it is taking this long to reach a deal that boosts training and accountability without impeding ICE agents from pursuing legitimate public safety threats.
Banning agents from wearing masks and requiring a form of identification is normal across American law enforcement. Requiring judicial warrants isn’t practical for every single deportation, but there are reasonable compromises short of that. Mandating the use of body cameras and requiring better training wouldn’t just help restore public trust. It would boost the credibility of agents.
Not everyone will get what they want. Congressional Republicans can’t simply ban sanctuary cities. And Democrats won’t get Republicans to ban every ICE operation in residential areas. They might look to savvy politicians like Collins, who was able to announce the end of an enhanced ICE operation in her state after appealing directly to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. In an interview, Collins said that “sitting down with DHS and discussing strategies to focus on detention and deportation of criminals” is a good way to prevent ICE surges.
On Wednesday, ABC and CBS were nauseatingly in awe on their flagship newscasts of far-left Texas State Representative James Talarico — who believes, among other things, God was non-binary and that Mary would support abortion — as possessing “cross-partisan appeal” in a campaign “emphasizing unity” to pull in “moderates” to deliver Texas the first statewide Democrat win since 1994.
CBS sent senior White House and campaign correspondent Ed O’Keefe to Austin, Texas, who reported back on CBS Mornings that Talarico had “put off his seminary studies in order to launch this campaign, believing he can combine support from Democrats, independents in this state and Republicans upset with the President.”
In a second live-shot that aired in some time zones (due to a CBS News Special Report on a Pentagon briefing), O’Keefe boasted of Talarico’s “cross-partisan appeal” with a “Christian progressive approach, that you can be rooted in your faith” and “make a faith-based argument as to why the country needs to change.”
WATCH: Wednesday’s ‘CBS Mornings’ fawns over Texas Democrat James Talarico’s “cross-partisan appeal,” “Christian progressive approach, that you can be rooted in your faith” and “make a faith-based argument as to why the country needs to change” that could “pull support from… pic.twitter.com/yjBXBJ9xwr
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 4, 2026
It is one thing to watch the Elitist Media be as unpredictably biased as they go about their business. It is entirely another to watch them inject their biases into stories from the weirdest angles, as ABC’s James Longman just did.
Watch as the network’s Chief International Correspondent James Longman closes out the videotaped portion of his report by foisting the American “forever war” terminology upon an Iranian Kurdish leader who may soon send his troops to take on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC):
WATCH: ABC’s James Longman foists American political slang upon an Iranian Kurdish leader who may soon send his troops to fight the IRGC, accosting him about his feelings on “forever war”:
MS NOW All In host Chris Hayes made a morally obscene analogy on his Monday show as he lamented that the United States allegedly does not appreciate the fact that the people who die in war are real human beings. To prove his point, Hayes tried to claim that the terror Americans felt after 9/11 is “commonplace” in other parts of the world because of “the kinds of war of aggression that Donald Trump just started.”
Hayes started with what may have seemed to be a friendly reminder that this war is taking place in the real world with real people being caught in the middle, “But outside these borders, war is having a bomb dropped on your daughter’s elementary school, seeing some alert or getting a panicked call, or on your apartment building, or the hospital where you are receiving care. Death from above. And when you only view war through our perspective, the understanding that bombs are never coming for us, it becomes nothing more than an abstraction. Gets far too easy to wave away the loss of human life. It’s priced in. It’s the cost of doing business.”
Chris Hayes compares bombing Iran to 9/11, “there was one instance in my lifetime when we in America experienced death from above. September 11th, 2001… For us, that kind of violence is an anomaly. It is a once in a lifetime tragedy. For other people, in other countries, the… pic.twitter.com/Vhmm59sUY4
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) March 3, 2026
President Trump fired back hard at political commentator Megyn Kelly after she claimed on her SiriusXM show that the U.S. service members killed in the ongoing Iran conflict “did not die for the United States.”
The Washington Post and New York Times are facing a furious backlash after publishing glowing eulogies for the Iranian regime’s slain dictator, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The Post, opening its obituary of Khamenei with language that softened the image of a brutal regime figure responsible for decades of repression and bloodshed.
Khamenei, who was killed Saturday during “Operation Epic Fury,” a coordinated U.S.–Israeli strike on Tehran, was described by the Post as having a “bushy white beard and an easy smile.”
If you thought The Washington Post’s infamous decision to describe ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as an “austere religious scholar” was a once in a lifetime lapse in editorial judgement, you were mistaken. With the death of Iran’s brutal dictatorial supreme leader, both The New York Times and The Post are back to remind you that legacy media still has no shame.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s longtime supreme leader responsible for executions, censorship, repression, and sponsoring terrorist groups worldwide, was killed in an airstrike on Saturday. His death comes weeks after his regime oversaw the execution of tens of thousands of Iranians who took to the streets to protest his very rule.
In a moment few would have predicted in one of America’s most reliably Democratic strongholds, ABC7 Los Angeles reported that support for President Donald Trump is growing among some Iranian Americans following the U.S. and Israeli strikes that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader.
During a weekend broadcast, ABC7 Eyewitness News showed hundreds gathered outside the federal building in Westwood, waving American, Israeli, and pre-1979 Iranian flags. The rally came after coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes targeted senior Iranian leadership and military infrastructure in Tehran and other key cities.
EXCLUSIVE: Did you know that a historic and symbolic landmark of the nation’s capital was recently vandalized by an individual currently sought after by the FBI? If the story escaped your attention, thank the Big Four News Apps — Apple News, Google News, Microsoft’s MSN and Yahoo News — which largely ignored the attack, only featuring one article on the story over four days.
On Feb. 20, Fox News exclusively reported that the Trump-Kennedy Center had been subjected to an alleged act of vandalism after a suspect poured a “toxic,” dark substance onto an outdoor ice rink earlier that morning. The attack marked a major escalation of violence on a federal property, particularly one that holds national significance.
On Monday’s Morning Joe in the aftermath of the Strikes on Iran and Pentagon Press Conference, co-host Jonathan Lemire was fixated and seemingly rooting for a scenario where President Trump’s approval would go down if there was a prolonged war or deaths of more American Troops. Then, guest Elise Jordan, co-host of The Weekend: Primetime, naively wondered why the military and Secretary Pete Hegseth have not shared all their classified war plans with the public.
The Morning Joe hosts and panelists also had a special focus on how the actions in Iran were supposedly not “America First,” even though the President has talked about Iran not being allowed to have a nuclear weapon since the 2016 election.
President Trump ordered a new offensive in Iran over the weekend, taking out top Iranian tyrants like Ayatollah Khamenei. Bizarrely, our media composed puffy obituaries for the Ayatollah and gave Iran’s foreign minister a softball platform when they all pressure each other to be ever more hostile in questioning our elected president.
MRC President David Bozell and NewsBusters Associate Editor Nick Fondacaro joined the show. Nick pointed out that over the weekend, The Washington Post ran an obituary titled: “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, is dead at 86.” The paper warmly remembered the brutal Islamic dictator as a “avuncular figure” with an “easy smile” and a love for “Persian poetry.” Why must American press outlets swoon over our enemies like that?