Thursday 26th of June 2025
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

spectacular beautiful bombing poopooed by CNN and the NYT.....

They came. They bunker-busted. They fled.

And then they set the stage to control the narrative via a massive P.R. operation.

POTUS hailed the “spectacular” victory of B-2s flying from the US to West Asia to release MOPs (“Massive Ordnance Penetrators) over Fordow in the middle of the night of June 22 (significantly, the same date of the start of Operation Barbarossa in 1941).

Trump 2.0 functionaries gloated that the Iranian nuclear program was now gone.

 

Empire of Chaos Takes War on BRICS to Next Level

BY PEPE ESCOBAR

 

That’s the reality show. Now for reality. Mannan Raisi, a member of the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) from the holy city of Qom, summed it all up: "Contrary to the statements of the lying US President, the nuclear facilities at Fordow were not seriously damaged. Only the above-ground structures, which can be restored, were destroyed. In addition, everything that could pose a danger to the population was evacuated in advance. There are no reports of any nuclear emissions. Trump's false claims about the ‘destruction of Fordow’ are refuted by the fact that the attacks were so superficial that there were not even any fatalities at the facility.”

 

IT’S PURELY AN ACT OF POLITICAL THEATER: SCOTT RITTER ON US STRIKES AGAINST IRAN pic.twitter.com/99wxl5e1QW

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) June 22, 2025

 

What really matters is that the Empire of Chaos, in a single – spectacularly criminal - raid, bunker-busted the UN charter (again); international law (again); the NPT (perhaps for good); the US constitution; the “international community”; and Trump’s own MAGA base.

The Global South is now doing the math – and drawing the necessary conclusions.“Peace through strength” POTUS now owns two wars; a genocide; and an unprovoked attack by a nuclear superpower on behalf of a nuclear power against a non-nuclear power.

The IRGC’s response was swift: the real war starts now. The Zionist axis will pay - in spades. It will not be a full-scale war against the Empire: that’s supremely un-strategic. What will develop is multi-layered death by a thousand cuts.

That was already in effect in the morning of June 23. Iran launched no less than five multi-directional waves of missiles - covering the whole of Israel, including new targets such as Ashdod port and power station. The Israeli interception rate fell below 50%. All hell broke loose - from alert siren malfunctions to power outages. Knesset members fled. An El Al rescue flight from New York was forced to turn back in mid-air when missiles started flying.

The message: the whole of Israel is now a legitimate target - reached within minutes by Kheybar-Shakan, Emad, Qadr, and Fattah-1 missiles.

 

The Strait of Hormuz: the ultimate card

Iran’s upgraded priorities include: stop the war on Gaza and southern Lebanon; “evolve” the nuclear doctrine (all bets are off); targeted assassinations of Zionist leaders; more strikes on Mossad; more missile barrages on Tel Aviv, Haifa and Dimona.

There will be no direct war on the Empire of Chaos. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is the ultimate Iranian card, not the nuclear card: it won’t be played in full for now. At best there could be a partial blockade of oil shipping to the – fragmented – collective West.

A top former Deep State source confirmed that “the CIA advised the Trump administration that China was resolutely against the shutting down of the Strait of Hormuz, so Trump went ahead with the bombing.”

Shutting down the Strait of Hormuz will detonate a global depression of unforeseem magnitude. The loss of over 20% of the world’s oil supply will trigger the implosion of over two quadrillion dollars of derivatives, as was already speculated by Goldman Sachs projections in the late 2010s. Warren Buffett described it as a chain reaction after a nuclear explosion.

As it stands, Tehran learned a lesson the hardest way. It’s not that the Iranian leadership acted immorally: on the contrary, its belief in diplomacy and serious negotiations proved totally at odds at with the US empire’s totally debased modus operandi.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi summed it all up. Iran was negotiating with the US “when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy.” Then Iran was talking “with the E3/EU when the US decided to blow up that diplomacy.” Ergo, it’s absurd to order Iran to "return" to the table: “How can Iran return to something it never left, let alone blew up?”

At the St. Petersburg forum, President Putin was very clear that “we support Iran and the struggle for its legitimate interests, including peaceful use of atomic energy." He added, crucially: “Those who say Russia is not a reliable partner are provocateurs."

Putin himself said earlier that week that Russia had previously offered to bolster Iran’s air defenses, but was not taken up on that offer. It also is no secret that unlike the treaty with North Korea, the Russia-Iran strategic partnership agreement didn’t feature a collective security provision.

That may be about to change.

There have been no substantial leaks yet on the Putin-Araghchi meeting – but supremely touchy issues would have to have been discussed. Putin reaffirmed, "the absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran has no basis and no justification." Then, he added, cryptically: "Russia is taking steps to support the Iranian people."

 

Russia needs a strong and stable Iran.

Today, Putin meets Iranian FM Araghchi in Moscow.

Here's why these talks are of paramount importance:  pic.twitter.com/oo3JyMXo8k

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) June 23, 2025

 

No one should be surprised if Iran decides that it now has to possess a nuclear weapon as a deterrent to the Zionist axis. One option floated by some analysts – although extremely touchy on several levels - would be a full security partnership with Russia and perhaps China, with Iran positioned under their nuclear umbrella.

After all these are three top BRICS nations – the revamped Primakov triangle and the Empire war is fundamentally a war against BRICS.

This new deal would at least keep Iran’s own nuclear enrichment as a civilian, scientific and non-military process, allowing the Russia-China strategic partnership to supervise uranium enrichment while providing security guarantees to Iran.

Additionally, that would be a security guarantee for the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) – which is in the strategic national interest of Russia.

The Chinese view is another very complex matter. There’s some sort of consensus among Chinese think tanks that Iran should now, more than ever, strengthen their air defense system. That likely means taking up Russia on its earlier offer to cooperate in this area.

 

A long dark cloud is coming down

Trump entering the – suicidal - war of Israel/US neocons on Iran just adds a new layer to the Big Picture. That was predictable since at least the late 1990s: the same playbook of controlling West Asia’s energy resources to enhance the economic power of the Empire of Chaos, while intimidating the Global South: don’t even think of deviating from our unilateral order.

Even POTUS himself gave away the game, in caps: “If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change? MIGA!”

Inestimable Prof. Michael Hudson, among a few others, has summarized the stakes: “Iran is not only the capstone to full control of the Near East and its oil and dollar holdings. Iran is a key link for China’s Belt and Road program for a New Silk Road of railway transport to the West. If the United States can overthrow the Iranian government, this interrupts the long transportation corridor that China already has constructed and hopes to extend further West. Iran also is a key to blocking Russian trade and development via the Caspian Sea and access to the south, bypassing the Suez Canal. And under U.S. control, an Iranian client regime could threaten Russia from its southern flank.”

So it’s no wonder that regime change in Tehran – that’s what the whole war is all about – is a matter of supreme national interest for US elites, in the sense stressed by Prof. Hudson of a “coercive empire of client states observing dollar hegemony by adhering to the dollarized international financial system.”

Now compare all of the above with the tenor of the discussions at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) last week. The forum ended in the evening of June 20. The US attacked Iran in the middle of the night of June 22.

Virtually the whole Global South was in St. Petersburg; at least 15,000 people. Over a thousand deals were signed, amounting to over $80 billion, according to Executive Secretary of the SPIEF Organizing Committee Anton Kobakov.

There were enlightening panels all around: on the challenges of the Northern Sea Route, one of the key connectivity corridors of the 21st century; on Russia-China mutual investments; on the reform of the international financial system; on the fight against fake news – an industry the West excels in – and AI controlling all narratives; on BRICS, the SCO, the EAEU, ASEAN, the INSTC.

At the plenary session, the Global South and BRICS were fully represented: Russia, China, Indonesia (President Prabowo was the guest of honor), South Africa, Bahrain. President Putin cut to the chase: “Russia and China aren't shaping the new world order - it's rising naturally, like the sun. We’re only paving the way to make it more balanced.”

Yet along dark cloud is coming down, as the Empire of Chaos will go no holds barred to block the sunrise. Russia’s representative at the UN Vasily Nebenzya nailed it, sharp as a dagger: “The US has opened Pandora’s box (…) No one knows what new catastrophes and suffering it will bring.”

https://sputnikglobe.com/20250624/empire-of-chaos-takes-war-on-brics-to-next-level-1122329286.html

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

real fake news....

US President Donald Trump has accused The New York Times and CNN of trying to spread misleading information regarding the results of US strikes on Iranian facilities.

On Tuesday, CNN reported that the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, carried out over the weekend, did not dismantle the country's nuclear program but likely set it back only by months. The New York Times published a similar report on Tuesday, saying that US strikes sealed off the entrances to Iranian facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings.

"Fake news CNN, together with the failing New York Times, have teamed up in an attempt to demean one of the most successful military strikes in history. The nuclear sites in Iran are completely destroyed! Both The Times and CNN are getting slammed by the public!" Trump said on Truth Social.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20250625/trump-lashes-out-on-cnn-nyt-for-reports-on-results-of-us-strikes-1122333516.html

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

greenish light....

 

By Bryce Greene / Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

In the wake of the US-supported Israeli attack on Iran, and days before the direct US bombing that followed, the New York Times editorial board (6/18/25) argued that “America Must Not Rush Into a War Against Iran.”

This language was as shifty as it was deliberate. Rather than oppose a policy of unprovoked aggression and mass murder, the Times editorialists suggested such a campaign was happening too hastily, and it should be preceded by more debate.

The opinion writers at the most important paper in the world were fully in favor of attacking Iran; they only worried that Trump would go about it the wrong way. In fact, the Times’ justification for war was identical to that of the Trump administration’s explanation after the fact.  It laid it out in the first paragraph:

A nuclear-armed Iran would make the world less safe. It would destabilize the already volatile Middle East. It could imperil Israel’s existence. It would encourage other nations to acquire their own nuclear weapons, with far-reaching geopolitical consequences.

The New York Times‘ echo of the standard Israeli and US propaganda line offers an opportunity to critically examine this most recent justification for aggressive war.

‘Iran is not building a nuclear weapon’

The premise here was that Iran is working to build a nuclear weapon, something that forms the backbone of the Israeli propaganda campaign justifying their actions. The only problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever for this position. Not only is there no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, there is no reason to think that if they did, they would be anything other than defensive weapons.

Nowhere in the Times analysis was there any reference to the fact that neither US intelligence agencies nor international monitoring organizations have found evidence of any Iranian intention to build a nuclear weapon. As recently as March 25, 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, the Trump administration’s director of national intelligence, told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the US intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”

While the International Atomic Energy Agency has been critical of steps Iran has taken to make its nuclear power program less transparent in the context of continual threats from Israel and the US to bomb that program, IAEA director Rafael Grossi emphasized in an interview with CNN (6/17/25; cited in Al Jazeera, 6/18/25), after those threats had become reality, “We did not have any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon.”

Unilaterally scrapped

While the Times editorial did make brief mention of the US’s Obama-era anti-nuclear treaty with Iran, it offered no analysis as to why the Trump administration unilaterally scrapped the deal, despite no violation on Iran’s part. Nor did the paper mention the Biden administration refusal to negotiate a return to the deal. There was no mention of the fact that as Israel launched its first strike against Iran, the Iranians had made it clear that they wished to make a deal with the Trump administration on its nuclear energy program, and were actively negotiating toward that end.

But the fact is that every country in the Middle East, including Iran, has been in favor of a nuclear weapons–free Middle East. Every country, that is, with the exception of Israel, whose illegal, undeclared and often unacknowledged stockpile of nuclear weapons are currently in the hands of a genocidal and messianic regime, hell-bent on attacking its neighbors and thwarting any opportunities for peace.

Despite all of the fearmongering about Iran’s alleged aggressive intent and destabilizing potential, the Times ignored ample analysis and evidence to the contrary. As eminent political scientist John Mearsheimer (PBS, 7/9/12) has argued, a nuclear armed Iran could make the region more stable, because of the deterrent power of nuclear weapons.

A 2009 US military–funded study from the RAND corporation (4/14/09) examined Iranian ”press statements, writings in military journals, and other glimpses into Iranian thinking,” and found that it was extremely unlikely that Iran would use nuclear weapons offensively against Israel. Contrary to the Times’ image of Iran as fanatical theocrats bent on Israel’s destruction at all costs, military planners in Iran are well aware of the danger of being wiped off the map by retaliatory US strikes, and plan accordingly. If the Islamic Republic was to get nuclear weapons, predicts RAND, they would be used to deter exactly the kind of unprovoked attack that the US and Israel have launched over the past several days. They would be defensive, not offensive, weapons.

‘A malevolent force in the world’ 

The editorial board explicitly avoided the question of what Congress should do on the question of war with Iran: “The separate question of whether the United States should join the conflict is not one that we are addressing here.” But they had no problem presenting their pros list:

We know the arguments in favor of doing so—namely, that Iran’s government is a malevolent force in the world, and that it has made substantial progress toward acquiring a nuclear weapon. Last week the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is part of the United Nations, declared that Iran was violating its nonproliferation obligations and apparently hiding evidence of its efforts.

And their cons list:

Given how much weaker Iran is today than it was then, thanks partly to Israel’s humbling of Iranian proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, the Trump administration might well be able to achieve a stricter [Iran nuclear deal] today.

While the Times correctly pointed out that the IAEA found Iran to be in “noncompliance” with the nonproliferation treaty (NPT), the Times failed to point out that this came after an intense lobbying effort from Western officials just hours before Israeli strikes. They also ignore Iran’s detailed criticism of the IAEA finding, including its allegations that the findings were based in part on forged documents—a credible allegation, given Israel’s history of fabricating and forging evidence to justify aggression. Iran also noted that some of the “nonproliferation obligations” it had allegedly violated were not codified in the NPT, but instead were part of the agreement that the US unilaterally withdrew from. Nor did the Times make reference to the IAEA chief’s explicit insistence that the agency did not have proof Iran was trying to build a nuclear weapon.

‘Let this vital debate begin’ 

Instead of explaining this, the Times went straight to name-calling. One does not have to scrape the annals of the New York Times to predict that the phrase “malevolent force” has never been used to describe any of Washington’s ultra-violent allies, even the ones who have actually built and maintained an illegal stockpile of nuclear weapons. Certainly not Israel, the nation that has put an entire population under military apartheid for decades, and has slaughtered tens of thousands as part of what international rights organizations have labeled a genocide.

The US and Israel have made Iran the target of propaganda campaigns, terrorism, cyber attacks, assassinations, regime change operations and unprovoked attacks on its personnel and home soil. If the Times had included these facts, it would have inhibited the ultimate goal of the editorial: to promote the idea that war with Iran could potentially be desirable—and certainly justifiable. The Times seemed keen to act as a loyal opposition to Trump, while distancing themselves from the manner in which he might enact such a war.

Including the facts of America’s aggressive and provocative behavior against Iran would force them to conclude that the primary force destabilizing the region is not Iran, but the US and Israel. It isn’t Iran whose top papers are weighing the benefits of whether or not to launch a war of aggression against yet another nation. That honor goes to the New York Times, which said of this national discussion of mass murder policy: “Let this vital debate begin.”

After the strikes on Iran, the Trump administration and Israel have not announced full scale regime change war just yet, though there is every indication that such plans are in the works. As with Iraq in 2003, we have seen how easily false claims of weapons of mass destruction, and propaganda about a need to act, can morph into a years-long quagmire of senseless killing in the name of rebuilding a nation according to Washington’s designs. If such a war should be launched against Iran, the Times will have been one of its key supporters.

Research assistance: Emma Llano

 

https://scheerpost.com/2025/06/25/nyt-gave-green-light-to-trumps-iran-attack-by-treating-it-as-a-question-of-when/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.