Dispelling false information about Irans regime

The Real Danger to World Peace: The United States and Israel

On 28 February 2026 and in the weeks that followed, Israel and the United States unlawfully bombed Iran. There was no declaration of war, no UN mandate, and no credible act of Iranian aggression that preceded the strikes. Iran retaliated by attacking Israel and six U.S. military bases in neighbouring Middle Eastern states to Iran's west. Western media framed this as Iranian aggression. This article examines what the evidence actually shows about who the aggressors are — and have long been.

                                 

Both Israel and the USA justified the bombing on the grounds of Iran's nuclear programme and the threat it allegedly posed.

During her press briefing on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump had a “feeling based on fact” that Iran posed an “imminent and direct threat” to the United States in the lead up to military action.

1. The United States: An Empire in All But Name

The United States has not formally declared war since 1941. Yet in the decades since World War II it has conducted nearly 400 military interventions across more than 80 countries and attempted 72 regime changes. Not one of those interventions produced a lasting democracy. What they reliably produced were compliant governments and open markets for American capital and resources.

This is not an accident of history. It is a pattern. As retired U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler — one of the most decorated soldiers in American history — wrote in his 1935 book War Is a Racket, after reflecting on decades of U.S. military interventions:

"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service… and during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers."

— General Smedley Butler, War Is a Racket (1935)

In 1967, during his speech Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. made one of the most direct criticisms of U.S. foreign policy ever spoken by a public figure:

"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government."

— Martin Luther King Jr., 1967

King argued that American militarism abroad was simultaneously undermining global peace and social justice at home. His words remain as relevant today as when he spoke them.

Global Opinion

These are not fringe assessments. In 2013, a WIN/Gallup International survey across 65 countries and around 67,000 respondents asked which country posed the greatest threat to world peace. The United States ranked first by a large margin, with 24% of respondents selecting it — significantly ahead of Pakistan, China, Iran, Israel, and North Korea.

A BBC World Service survey in the mid-2000s found that majorities in many countries, including parts of Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, believed U.S. foreign policy was contributing to instability rather than promoting peace. More recently, a German national survey found around two-thirds of respondents viewed the United States as a potential threat to world peace.

Political linguist and historian Noam Chomsky, summarising these findings, observed:

"If you look at global opinion polls, the United States is regarded as the greatest threat to world peace."

— Noam Chomsky

Trump and the Acceleration of Empire

Under President Trump — an authoritarian-leaning leader repeatedly accused of violating U.S. and international law — these imperial tendencies have accelerated aggressively.

• The U.S. unlawfully invaded Venezuela and kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, a blatant act of regime change aimed at seizing control of Venezuelan resources.

• Trump repeatedly threatened to acquire Greenland, openly discussing the possibility of seizing it in violation of international norms and NATO agreements.

• He significantly increased sanctions on Cuba, including fuel blockades, to coerce the Cuban government into accepting U.S. control.

• He made open statements about using economic force to eliminate the border and absorb Canada into the United States.

These are not the actions of a country defending itself. They are the actions of an empire that has run out of patience with diplomatic pretence.

U.S. Sanctions: A Political Weapon, Not a Legal One

The United States imposes permanent sanctions selectively and exclusively on states it dislikes but cannot invade or control. Its sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela have no UN authorisation and are widely considered unlawful under international law. Its sanctions against Iran have UN backing, but as the history below makes clear, that backing was manufactured through decades of pressure and fabricated threat assessments.

Crucially, the United States has never sanctioned its own allies for comparable or worse behaviour. Saudi Arabia, which executes dissidents and has prosecuted a catastrophic war in Yemen, receives unqualified U.S. military and financial support. Egypt, governed by a military dictator who came to power in a coup, receives U.S. aid. The pattern is not principle. It is politics.

The sanctions toolkit is reinforced by another weapon rarely described honestly in Western media: the seizure of foreign sovereign assets. When the U.S. or its allies want to strangle a government financially, they don't just restrict trade — they freeze or confiscate the target country's own money held abroad. Iran has had between $100 billion and $120 billion in foreign assets frozen since 1979, with funds locked up across the U.S., South Korea, Japan, Iraq, China and Luxembourg. Some of that money has been redirected to American court judgments, effectively transferred to U.S. parties permanently. The U.S. also seized a Manhattan skyscraper belonging to the Iranian government worth over a billion dollars. Venezuela's experience is identical in structure. The Bank of England has held 31 tonnes of Venezuelan gold — worth around $4.8 billion — since refusing to return it in 2019. John Bolton's memoir later confirmed that the UK Foreign Office blocked the transfer at direct U.S. request. Venezuela's then vice-president called it "blatant piracy." As of early 2026, the gold remains frozen. The pattern is consistent: sanctions cut off income, asset freezes cut off reserves, and together they are designed to make a targeted government unable to function — not because it has broken international law, but because it has refused to comply with U.S. interests.

2. U.S. Military Bases in the Middle East: Power Projection, Not Defence

Most U.S. military bases in the Middle East were established during the Cold War to project power, contain Soviet influence, and protect authoritarian regimes aligned with U.S. interests. They were not designed to defend host countries from external invasion. They were designed to maintain U.S. control over strategic oil resources, regional politics, and compliant governments. Because these bases were built for force projection rather than territorial defence, they are structurally vulnerable — a reflection of their real purpose.

Base	Host Country	Est.	Original Purpose	Vulnerability
Al Udeid Air Base	Qatar	1996	Forward air operations; CENTCOM HQ; regional power projection	Built for operations, not full defence; relies on host cooperation
Prince Sultan Air Base	Saudi Arabia	1991 (expanded)	Air ops hub post-Gulf War; protect U.S.-allied monarchy	Spread-out structure; minimal local defence against large-scale attack
Camp Arifjan	Kuwait	Late 1990s	Logistics, training, staging for regional operations	Mainly logistical; not hardened for large-scale invasion
Ali Al Salem Air Base	Kuwait	1991	Support coalition operations; staging and logistics	Vulnerable if host regime is destabilised
Al-Asad Airbase	Iraq	2003	Operations during Iraq War; regional military hub	Located in country with ongoing insurgency risk
Muwaffaq al Salti Air Base	Jordan	2000s	Training and regional force projection; support monarchy	Dependent on host stability
Naval Support Activity Bahrain	Bahrain	1970s	Protect Gulf monarchies; U.S. Fifth Fleet operations	Small territory; relies on naval defence and host cooperation

3. Iran: The Manufactured Enemy

How the United States Created the Problem it Now Blames Iran For

To understand Iran's current position, you have to start in 1953. That year, the United States and the United Kingdom backed a coup that removed Iran's democratically elected government, led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, and restored the monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Mosaddegh's crime was nationalising Iran's oil industry.

Iran remained under the Shah’s rule for 26 years, friendly to the United States and open to Western oil interests. The Shah’s secret police, SAVAK, tortured and killed thousands of political opponents — with full Western knowledge and support. In 1979 the Iranian people overthrew the monarchy in the Islamic Revolution. After a struggle between workers’ movements and Islamist forces, the Islamists prevailed and established the Islamic Republic.

The connection between 1953 and 1979 is direct and documented in CIA records. The agency’s own published analysis describes how the 1953 coup “transformed a turbulent constitutional monarchy into an absolutist kingship” and traces consequences running at least as far as the 1979 revolution. The United States created the conditions for the Islamic Republic, then spent the next four decades trying to destroy what it had helped produce.

The United States has spent those decades applying sanctions, backing regime-change efforts, and maintaining a constant military threat at Iran’s borders. The hostility is not a response to Iranian aggression. It is a response to Iranian independence from U.S. control.

Netanyahu's Decades of False Alarms

The primary justification offered for recent unlawful attacks on Iran — by both Israel and the United States — is the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. This justification has been recycled, with diminishing credibility, for over thirty years.

Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that Iran is on the “cusp,” “verge,” or “weeks away” from a nuclear bomb in major public speeches since at least 1992. Key instances include:

• 1992: Testified to the Israeli Knesset that Iran was 3–5 years from a nuclear weapon.

• 1995–96: Repeated the 3–5 year claim in his book Fighting Terrorism and in a speech to the U.S. Congress.

• 2009: Told U.S. Congress members Iran was “one or two years away.”

• 2012: Used a cartoon bomb diagram at the UN General Assembly to argue Iran was “a few months or weeks away.”

• 2015: Told Congress Iran was on the brink of a weapon.

• 2018: Claimed to have proof of a secret, ongoing Iranian nuclear weapons program.

• 2024–2025: Declared Iran was “within months” of a weapon, using this as justification for military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

Throughout this entire period, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors consistently reported no evidence that Iran was actively building a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu's warnings have never once been verified by independent inspection. They have, however, served reliably to build the case for sanctions and military action.

                                                      

The JCPOA: Diplomacy Sabotaged

In 2015, President Obama's administration negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran — an agreement under which Iran accepted stringent limits on its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. International inspectors verified Iranian compliance.

In 2018, President Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the agreement and reimposed crushing economic sanctions on Iran. It was this withdrawal — not Iranian aggression — that prompted Iran to resume nuclear activities. The attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025 then took place while renewed nuclear negotiations were actively underway.

The claim that Iran represents a nuclear threat is therefore not only chronically unverified — it was the United States itself that destroyed the diplomatic framework designed to address it.

Trump's claim that the nuclear threat was real also collapses under the weight of his own statements. In June 2025, the U.S. and Israel bombed Iran's nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Trump declared the facilities "completely and totally obliterated." An early Defence Intelligence Agency assessment told a different story — the strikes likely set Iran's program back by months, not years. Eight months later, Trump's own envoy Steve Witkoff was telling Fox News Iran was "probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material" — and the U.S. was threatening to bomb Iran again. Either Trump lied about the obliteration to claim a victory that didn't happen, the bombing genuinely failed and he can't admit it, or — most plausibly — the nuclear excuse is simply that: an excuse, and no amount of destruction of Iranian nuclear infrastructure will ever be enough to stop the attacks, because the real goal is control, not non-proliferation.

UN Sanctions and the Libya Lesson

The United Nations is structurally incapable of holding the United States or Israel accountable to its own resolutions and international law, while being used as a tool to apply pressure to states the Western powers wish to isolate.

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1696 in 2006, demanding Iran suspend uranium enrichment, then Resolution 1737, which imposed sanctions when Iran refused. Further resolutions expanded sanctions on banking, trade, and weapons. These caused serious economic damage to ordinary Iranians. The sanctions were lifted following the 2015 JCPOA and then reimposed by Trump.

Libya illustrates why states are rational to resist this pressure. After years of UN and U.S. sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and coercion, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi announced in 2003 that his government would dismantle its nuclear weapons programme and other weapons of mass destruction. International inspectors verified the dismantlement. Diplomatic relations improved and sanctions were lifted.

In 2011, NATO bombed Libya anyway under a UN Security Council mandate, contributing to the collapse of the Libyan state and years of subsequent chaos. Gaddafi had also been developing plans for an African petrodollar currency that would have competed with U.S. dollar dominance — a far more plausible explanation for Western intervention than humanitarian concern.

The lesson is unambiguous: states that surrender strategic deterrents under external pressure remain vulnerable to the same external pressure. The coercion was never really about nuclear weapons. It was about control.

The stated justification for attacking Iran is nuclear danger. The real goal is control. The United States does not seek to destroy governments — it seeks to replace them with ones that comply with its interests. A compliant Iranian government would mean access to Iranian oil, the removal of an independent regional power, and the elimination of the last significant state in the Middle East outside U.S. influence. Sanctions are the first instrument: economic strangulation designed to turn a population against its government. Bombing follows when sanctions fail to finish the job. Venezuela shows the template clearly — years of sanctions, then the physical seizure of Maduro. Iran is the same playbook at larger scale. The nuclear dimension adds urgency because a nuclear-armed Iran, like North Korea, becomes effectively uninvadable. Once Iran has the weapon, the military option for regime change disappears. That is why the bombing is happening now, and why it happened while negotiations were still underway — because the window is closing.

4. Comparing Governments in the Region

Western governments and media routinely describe Iran as a “regime” while treating U.S.-backed monarchies and military dictatorships as legitimate partners. It is worth examining the political systems of the key states in the region side by side.

Egypt — Military Dictatorship

Egypt formally has a constitution and holds elections, but the elections are not considered free or fair by international observers and meaningful political competition is banned. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi came to power through a military coup in 2013, overthrowing an elected president. Political power is concentrated in the president and the military. The United States provides Egypt with substantial military aid and diplomatic support.

Jordan — Authoritarian Monarchy

Jordan is a constitutional monarchy in name, but real power is concentrated in King Abdullah II and the military. Parliament exists but has limited influence; the king can dissolve it and appoint key officials. Freedom of assembly, speech, and political party activity is restricted. Jordan hosts U.S. military bases and training facilities and receives significant U.S. military aid, which serves to reinforce the monarchy's grip on power.

Saudi Arabia — Absolute Monarchy

Saudi Arabia has no elected parliament; the monarchy controls all major institutions. Political parties and organised opposition are banned. Despite some reforms under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, social and political freedoms remain severely restricted. Saudi Arabia hosts key U.S. military bases and receives massive U.S. military and economic support. That support protects the monarchy's control over power and resources, not Saudi citizens from external threat.

Iran — Theocratic Republic (Guided Democracy)

Iran's system is frequently caricatured in Western media, but its structure is more complex than the authoritarian label suggests. Political scientists sometimes use the term “guided democracy” for systems like Iran's — real elections exist, real competition occurs between approved candidates, and politicians have a genuine incentive to care about public opinion, but the range of permitted candidates is constrained by ideological vetting. That is a meaningful distinction from a straightforward dictatorship, where no such competition exists.

The Supreme Leader controls the military, judiciary, and foreign policy, functioning less like a day-to-day executive and more like a constitutional court of one — upholding the Republic's foundational values rather than running ministries. The President handles domestic governance on a daily basis. Citizens directly elect both the President and Parliament (the Majlis) every four years. Local councils are also elected. Candidate vetting by the Guardian Council limits genuine competition, but elections are held and turnout is often high.

One structural feature rarely discussed in Western coverage: Iran deliberately operates two parallel militaries — the regular armed forces and the Revolutionary Guards, each with their own ground forces, navy, and air force. Neither would ever allow the other to stage a coup, making military takeover of the government structurally almost impossible. It is a system designed specifically to prevent the kind of military dictatorship common elsewhere in the region.

The Supreme Leader is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, a body elected directly by the people. The Assembly also has the constitutional power to oversee the Supreme Leader's conduct and impeach him. This is not ceremonial — it is a real check, if an imperfect one. Executive authority is deliberately split between the President and the Supreme Leader, with additional bodies such as the Expediency Council mediating disputes between branches.

Women can vote, run for office, and now make up over half of university students. Domestic policies covering policing, education, social law, and economic regulation are implemented by elected government agencies, though all remain under theocratic oversight. Iran is not a democracy by Western standards — but it is more democratic in its internal functioning than Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Egypt, all of which receive unqualified U.S. support.

Iranians are not Arabic,  they are Indo-European and their main language is not semitic like rest of middle east but Farzi, thou Arabic is taught in schools because of the main religion.

Israel — Ethno-Religious Democracy

Israel defines itself as a “Jewish and democratic state.” The Nation-State Law of 2018 formally enshrines the country's national identity as tied to the Jewish people, privileging Jews in immigration, language, and culture. Orthodox Jewish authorities control key areas of personal status law, including marriage, divorce, and burial. Religious parties frequently hold kingmaker roles in coalition governments.

Palestinian citizens of Israel, approximately 20% of the population, face systemic inequalities in housing, land access, and political representation. Israel has a parliamentary democracy with universal suffrage, but the combination of ethnic preference, religious legal authority, and structural discrimination against a fifth of its citizens gives it the character of an ethno-religious state rather than a purely secular one.

5. Israel: Crimes, Hypocrisy, and the Nuclear Double Standard

Nuclear Hypocrisy

Israel possesses nuclear weapons. It refuses to confirm or deny this, has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has never submitted to the international inspections that are applied to other states in the region. Iran, which has signed the NPT and submitted to inspections that have consistently found no evidence of weapons development, faces military attack. Israel, which actually has nuclear weapons and refuses all oversight, faces no sanctions and no scrutiny from its Western allies.

The Scale of Israeli Military Operations (2025)

According to data from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data project (ACLED), in 2025 up to December 5, Israel attacked:

• Gaza and the occupied West Bank: 8,332 times

• Lebanon: 1,653 times

• Iran: 379 times

• Syria: 207 times

• Yemen: 48 times

• Qatar: once

• Tunisian, Maltese, and Greek waters: multiple incidents

These are not the figures of a state acting in defensive self-interest. They are the operational record of a regional military power conducting sustained offensive operations across multiple countries simultaneously.

A Record of Violence and Occupation

Israel's actions in the region extend well beyond its recent military campaigns. Key documented actions include:

• The ongoing occupation and annexation of parts of the West Bank, with the application of apartheid-level restrictions on Palestinian movement, land ownership, and political rights.

• The annexation of the Golan Heights, Syrian territory, in violation of international law.

• Further military incursions into Syria following the fall of the Assad regime in 2024.

• Participation in the Sabra and Shatila massacre of 1982, in which Israeli forces enabled Lebanese militias to murder thousands of Palestinian civilians in refugee camps.

• The 2018–2019 Gaza border killings: Israeli forces shot and killed more than 200 Palestinian protesters during the Great March of Return, according to UN reporting.

• The ongoing military campaign in Gaza since October 2023, which has targeted civilians, medical staff, children, journalists, and aid workers at a scale that multiple international legal bodies and human rights organisations have characterised as genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Under international law, most of Israel's cross-border operations are technically unlawful — not conducted in genuine self-defence and without UN or host-state approval. Israel and the United States claim all such operations constitute self-defence. But a state that is simultaneously the largest military power in its region, an active colonial occupier, and conducting offensive operations in five countries cannot credibly claim that every action it takes is defensive.

Iran's Retaliation

In response to unlawful Israeli and U.S. military strikes on its territory, Iran struck back at U.S. military bases in neighbouring countries and launched drone attacks at Israel. These retaliatory strikes were framed in Western media as Iranian aggression. The strikes that provoked them received considerably less coverage.

6. NATO, Ukraine, and the Pattern of Provocation

President Putin cited NATO's progressive eastward expansion — specifically the prospect of Ukraine joining the alliance — as the primary driver of Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Whatever one thinks of Putin's decision to invade, Western governments had been warned repeatedly by senior NATO officials, foreign policy analysts, and Russian diplomats for decades that expanding NATO to Russia's border would be treated as an existential provocation.

In 2011, NATO intervened militarily in Libya under a UN Security Council mandate, contributing directly to the collapse of the Libyan state. The country experienced prolonged instability, civil war, and fragmentation rather than the stable democratic transition that was promised. Gaddafi had been developing plans for an African petrodollar that would have competed with U.S. dollar dominance — a detail that received little attention in the Western press.

7. How Democratic Is the United States?

Before accepting U.S. proclamations about democracy and freedom at face value, it is worth examining the domestic political system of the United States itself.

• There are approximately 10,000 registered lobbyists for 535 members of Congress. AIPAC, a foreign-interest lobby group, operates freely despite legislation that would ordinarily require its registration as a foreign agent — legislation Congress has declined to apply.

• The Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling allows corporations to donate effectively unlimited sums to political campaigns, making large-scale financial influence over elected officials legal.

• A 2014 academic study by Gilens and Page (Perspectives on Politics) found that voters get approximately 2% of the policy outcomes they want passed into law, while billionaires and major interest groups achieve over half of their preferred policy outcomes.

• Under Trump, the administration has pardoned convicted criminals who align with his political project, sought to stack the Supreme Court, and used immigration enforcement agencies to carry out deportations that legal experts have described as unlawful.

As Wikipedia notes, the United States government “first recognized the usefulness of foreign aid as a tool of diplomacy” during World War II, believing it would promote liberal capitalist models of development and enhance national security. Foreign aid, in other words, was always also a form of strategic bribery — and U.S. domestic democracy has been shaped by the same financial logic that drives its foreign policy.

                                        

How does the world see it 

The United States and Israel launched this war without broad international support, and that isolation has only deepened as the conflict continues.

Spain declared the strikes a violation of international law and refused to allow the United States to use its joint air bases at Rota and Morón for operations against Iran. The Hill Trump responded with threats of trade sanctions. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez framed his country's position with the phrase "no to war," drawing explicit parallels to Spain's opposition to the 2003 Iraq invasion. Wikipedia

When Trump called on France, Germany, the UK, Japan, South Korea and others to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz, the response was a near-universal refusal. Germany's Defence Minister said flatly: "This is not our war. We have not started it." The EU's foreign policy chief said after a Brussels gathering that there was "no appetite" among member states for joining the war. "Nobody wants to go actively in this war," she said. Al Jazeera Australia, Japan, Poland, Sweden and Spain all said they had no intention of sending military ships. Al Jazeera

At home in the United States, the picture is similar. A majority of Americans — 56% — oppose U.S. military action in Iran, with only 44% in support, according to the NPR/PBS News/Marist poll. Marist Poll 62% of voters think the Trump administration has not provided a clear explanation for the military action. Quinnipiac University Poll Across five separate polls asking whether the war makes the U.S. safer or less safe, an average of only 19% of Republicans said it would make the country less safe — but majorities of independents and Democrats consistently said it would make things worse, not better. CNN 74% of voters oppose sending ground troops into Iran — including a majority of Republicans. Quinnipiac University Poll

The support that does exist is almost entirely partisan. Around 77% of Republicans approve of the strikes, compared with 32% of independents and 18% of Democrats. CNN Trump's overall approval on Iran stands at 38%. The war he launched without congressional approval, while nuclear negotiations were underway, is opposed by most of his own country and almost all of his allies.

Conclusion

The framing offered by Western governments and much of the Western media — in which the United States and Israel are defenders of a rules-based international order against rogue states like Iran — cannot survive contact with the facts.

Iran has no nuclear weapons. It has signed and submitted to inspection under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It resumed nuclear activity only after the United States tore up the diplomatic agreement that had suspended it. It retaliates against military attacks on its own territory.

The United States has conducted nearly 400 military interventions since World War II, attempted 72 regime changes, imposed unlawful sanctions on countries it cannot control, and under its current president has kidnapped a foreign head of state, threatened to seize a NATO ally's territory, and blockaded a small island nation.

Israel has nuclear weapons it will neither confirm nor deny, has never submitted to non-proliferation inspection, and in 2025 conducted over 8,000 military strikes on Gaza and the West Bank alone, while simultaneously attacking Lebanon, Iran, Syria, and Yemen.

The danger to world peace is not difficult to identify. Global opinion polls have been identifying it consistently for over two decades. The difficulty is in persuading Western publics — whose governments and media are implicated in that danger — to look at the evidence honestly.