SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
terrorism
Iran: The Things It Won’t Do to Say
If Thomas Friedman’s fairytale world of light-versus-darkness were to evaporate, less noble motives for U.S. and Israeli actions might be revealed.
Jul 01, 2025
In his unpublished preface to Animal Farm, George Orwell remarks that “the sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that, or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady.”
With the Israeli and U.S. aerial invasions of Iran on June 13 and June 21, respectively, the Victorian convention remains intact. There are certain questions it won’t do to ask. Are the invasions legal under international law? Are they morally justified? And who has the right to make those determinations?
These questions would be central in a media sphere that values legal and moral consistency. In Western media, by contrast, asking them is like mentioning trousers before a lady. Political debate focuses instead on U.S. President Donald Trump’s personality flaws or on speculation about whether the bombing will succeed in its stated aims.
It is because the world values democracy and international law that it condemns U.S. foreign policy.
The nearly universal embrace of the Victorian norm is apparent when we consider The New York Times, a liberal paper known for confronting Trump on many matters. In June 2025 the Times published over 40 opinion pieces in which Iran was a central focus. They range from unabashed praise for “Trump’s Courageous and Correct Decision” (6/23/25) to the editorial board’s advice that “America Must Not Rush into a War Against Iran” (6/19/25). Disagreements aside, however, nearly all the writers evidently consider international law irrelevant.
With just one significant exception, the paper’s editors and columnists have ignored the fact that the U.S. and Israeli bombings violate the United Nations Charter, the central document of international law. The charter prohibits the “threat or use of force” by nations that are not under attack or not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Nor have they mentioned the multiple other international crimes which the U.S. and Israel are committing every day, including the near total blockade on humanitarian aid into Gaza, daily sniper assaults on desperate unarmed people, and deliberate starvation of infants, all part of what U.N. human rights experts and mainstream human rights organizations have long understood as a genocide. (A Times online-only piece by David Wallace-Wells [6/25/25] did cite the genocide findings.)
Furthermore, amid wall-to-wall condemnation of Iran’s possible nuclear ambitions, not a single New York Times editor or opinion writer has noted that the U.S. and Israel are in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and international treaties requiring them to help establish a “nuclear-weapons-free zone” in the Middle East and to work toward global abolition. There is universal silence on Israel’s refusal to sign the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the fact that it’s the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East (partly enabled by the United States, in violation of multiple laws), and the refusal of the U.S. and Israel to sign the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As the leading international law scholar Richard Falk observed in an earlier era of U.S. debate over Iran, there is “a presumed total irrelevance of international law to the policy debate.”
The Times editors are following precedent. In a detailed study of Times editorial coverage of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Falk and coauthor Howard Friel found that “no space” on the opinion pages “was accorded to the broad array of international law and world-order arguments opposing the war.” The same pattern has long held true for Times coverage of Iran. Pious concern for “the rule of law”—that concept invoked by liberals to criticize Trump’s domestic authoritarianism—usually stops at the water’s edge.
The only significant exception in our Times sample was a guest column by Yale law professor Oona Hathaway (6/24/25). Hathaway notes that the U.S. bombing is an obvious violation of the U.N. Charter’s “prohibition on the unilateral resort to force,” which “is the foundational principle of the postwar legal order.” She further observes that Trump’s decision sets “an example of lawlessness” that further undermines the international rule of law, inviting other rogue actors to do the same. Apart from Hathaway’s commendable exception, only two letters-to-the-editor published on June 23, plus one line in a Peter Beinart column (6/21/25) and one in a Lydia Polgreen column (6/29/25), mentioned that the bombing violates international law.
The Times’ other authors exhibit no such ideological indiscipline. Thomas Friedman, true to form, casts the affair as a war for civilization. U.S.-Israeli aggression is part of “a global struggle between the forces of inclusion and the forces of resistance” (6/23/25). Those who promote “inclusion” include the U.S., Israel, and “pro-American governments,” who are working “to integrate global and regional markets,” as manifested in their enthusiasm for “business conferences, news organizations, elites, investment funds, tech incubators, and major trade routes.” They include Arab dictatorships like the one in Saudi Arabia, where Mohammed bin Salman is boldly remaking his country into “the biggest engine for regional trade, investment, and reform of Islam” (even if he “has made some serious mistakes”). By contrast, the “forces of resistance” want “a world safe for autocracy, safe for theocracy, safe for their corruption; a world free from the winds of personal freedoms, the rule of law, a free press.”
Others are more critical, but keep their criticisms within the bounds of polite Victorian discourse. The editors (6/19/25) urge Trump not to be “dragged into another war in the Middle East, with American lives at stake.” If he wants to bomb Iran, “he should then make the case to the nation for committing American blood and treasure.” Iranian blood and treasure do not merit a place among the possible downsides. Nicholas Kristof (6/23/25) also has reservations about the U.S. bombing, but mainly because of potential costs to the United States. Agreeing with Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, he worries the Iranians could retaliate and “threaten our armed forces in the region.” Why those forces are in the region, or have the right to be, goes unquestioned.
Concerns about legality, when expressed, focus on the lack of authorization from the U.S. Congress. If the president wants war, he should “make the case” to Congress. Unquestioned is the U.S. Congress’ legal right to launch a war, even an “unprovoked” war, as the editorial board observes this one to be. International law is a triviality. In an entire Times “Opinions” podcast (6/27/25) debating the legality of the U.S. bombing, none of the three discussants—Jamelle Bouie, David French, and Carlos Lozada—bothered to consider the legality under international law. The same disdain is nearly pervasive in U.S. political discourse, including in many progressive criticisms of the bombing, from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to Rev. William Barber.
In another episode of the “Opinions” podcast (6/25/25), Times columnist and “hawk” Bret Stephens debated Rosemary Kelanic, a “skeptic.” The interchange was most notable for how the skeptic spent almost as much time agreeing with her opponent as rebutting him. Although she feared the bombing could be “counterproductive” since it gives Iran “a huge incentive to build a bomb” (a self-evident causal relationship long understood by all serious observers), she stressed that Israel is right to “be extremely upset” and blamed Iranian leaders for having “put themselves in this situation.” Israel is justified in “not trusting Iran” because “Iran retaliated and killed Israelis, like, Israel should be mad at Iran.” Translation: It’s reasonable for aggressors to get mad at targets who fire back, provided the aggressors are on our side.
Kelanic also endorses Stephens’s labeling of Iran as “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.” This is a point of consensus among Stephens the hawk, Kelanic the dove, and debate moderator David Leonhardt. Leonhardt’s own intervention is telling given his position as Times editorial director. At one point he soliloquizes that Iran is “a malevolent force in the world that’s killed a lot of Americans.” The weakening of Iran and its regional allies is thus cause for rejoicing. “I look at that as an American,” he says, and it “cheers me in some ways.” Since Iran “has really caused a lot of pain and suffering over the last several decades,” its weakened condition makes it “much less able to cause that suffering.”
Leonhardt accidentally identifies part of the problem: The editorial director at the world’s leading newspaper views world affairs “as an American”—through the lens of nationalist exceptionalism, not through a set of universal standards applied equally to all actors. Were he to remove his nationalist blinders and behold the actual record of “the last several decades,” Leonhardt might reach different conclusions about the sources of “pain and suffering.”
He would, for example, see the facts compiled by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, which estimates that wars since September 11, 2001 have killed “at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting” through direct and indirect violence. Most of those people have been killed in wars that the U.S. government bears primary responsibility for initiating or enabling, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Yemen. The U,S. lead is even starker if we include the mass extermination of Palestinians since October 2023, which is not part of the Watson Institute data. No Western or Israeli intelligence agency has alleged that Iran’s violence against Western or Israeli personnel, retaliatory or otherwise, has produced even 1% of that death count. It takes real fealty to state doctrine to see Iran as “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.”
Shedding the nationalist blinders would also reveal key facts about the U.S. and Israeli bombing of Iran. Iranian human rights group HRANA reports that Israel’s bombing “targeted infrastructures, military and civilian facilities, residential areas, and industrial sites in 25 provinces,” killing a minimum of 865 people, of whom at least 363 were civilians. Civilian death estimates were mentioned only twice, in passing, in our New York Times sample (6/24/25 and 6/28/25).
A researcher not confined by nationalism might also consider global opinion, based on the novel idea that people’s preferences should matter in a democratic world. Leonhardt self-identifies as “someone who favors democracy” (6/25/25), yet this approach somehow escapes him. A key source would be the annual Democracy Perception Index (DPI). In the 2025 edition, released in May, people in 76 of the 96 countries surveyed “have a more positive view of China” than of the United States. Of major global leaders, “Donald Trump stands out with the most universally negative image,” with 82% of countries giving Trump a “net negative rating,” versus 61% for Russian President Vladimir Putin and 44% for Chinese President Xi Jinping.
It’s not that people disagree with the U.S.’ professed ideals of democracy and rule of law—just the opposite. Most respondents in almost every country say democracy is “very” or “extremely important.” Most also favor the idea of a “rules-based world order.” People in 85% of countries, including the United States, say all countries “should follow international laws and agreements, even if it limits their freedom of action.” Yet surveys by DPI and many other pollsters show that the world views the United States as the top threat to democracy and peace. It is because the world values democracy and international law that it condemns U.S. foreign policy.
These findings would be important considerations for anyone who “favors democracy” and “rule of law.” But in our political culture they are inappropriate for well-mannered debate, like mentioning trousers with a lady present.
Asking impertinent questions about legality and morality could, of course, spark unhealthy scrutiny of U.S.-Israeli objectives. If Thomas Friedman’s fairytale world of light-versus-darkness were to evaporate, less noble motives for U.S. and Israeli actions might be revealed: Western control of resources, the preservation of ethno-racial supremacy in Greater Israel, and the need to eliminate all who oppose those goals. All things it won’t do to say.
Keep ReadingShow Less
NATO's 5% Pledge: An Obscene Betrayal of Global Needs
Presented as a historic step, in truth this increased level of military spending represents a major step backwards for humanity and the common good.
Jun 26, 2025
At this week’s NATO summit in The Hague, leaders announced an alarming new goal: push military spending to 5% of nations’ GDP by 2035. Framed as a response to rising global threats, particularly from Russia and terrorism, the declaration was hailed as a historic step. But in truth, it represents a major step backwards—away from addressing the urgent needs of people and the planet, and toward an arms race that will impoverish societies while enriching weapons contractors.
This outrageous 5% spending target didn’t come out of nowhere—it’s the direct result of years of bullying by U.S. President Donald Trump. During his first term, Trump repeatedly berated NATO members for not spending enough on their militaries, pressuring them to meet a 2% GDP threshold that was already controversial and so excessive that nine NATO countries still fall below that “target.”
Now, with Trump back in the White House, NATO leaders are falling in line, setting a staggering 5% target that even the United States—already spending over $1 trillion a year on its military—doesn’t reach. This is not defense; it’s extortion on a global scale, pushed by a president who views diplomacy as a shakedown and war as good business.
This is not defense; it’s extortion on a global scale, pushed by a president who views diplomacy as a shakedown and war as good business.
Countries across Europe and North America are already slashing public services and yet they are now expected to funnel even more taxpayer money into war preparation. Currently, no NATO country spends more on the military than on health or education. But if they all hit the new 5% military spending goal, 21 of them would spend more on weapons than on schools.
Spain was one of the few to reject this escalation, with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez making clear that his government would not sacrifice pensions and social programs to meet a militarized spending target. Other governments, including Belgium and Slovakia, quietly pushed back too.
Still, NATO leaders pressed on, cheered by Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who fawned over Donald Trump’s demand that Europe boost defense spending. Rutte even referred to Trump as “Daddy,” a comment that—while dismissed as a joke—spoke volumes about NATO’s subservience to U.S. militarism. Under Trump’s influence, the NATO alliance is shedding even the pretense of being a defensive pact, embracing instead the language and logic of perpetual war.
Real security doesn’t come from tanks and missiles—it comes from strong communities, global cooperation, and urgent action on our shared crises.
Just before NATO leaders were gathering at the Hague, protesters took to the streets under the banner “No to NATO.” And back in their home countries, civic groups are demanding a redirection of resources toward climate justice, healthcare, and peace. Polls show that majorities in the U.S. oppose increased military spending, but NATO is not accountable to the people. It’s accountable to political elites, arms manufacturers and a Cold War logic that sees every global development through the lens of threat and domination.
NATO’s expansion, both in terms of war spending and size (it has grown from 12 founding members to 32 countries today) has not brought peace. On the contrary, the alliance’s promise that Ukraine would one day join its ranks was one of the triggers for Russia’s brutal war. Instead of de-escalating, the alliance has doubled down with weapons, not diplomacy. In Gaza, Israel continues its U.S.-backed war with impunity, while NATO nations send more arms and offer no serious push for peace. Now the alliance wants to drain public coffers to sustain these wars indefinitely. NATO is also surrounding its adversaries, particularly Russia, with ever more bases and troops.
Under Trump’s influence, the NATO alliance is shedding even the pretense of being a defensive pact, embracing instead the language and logic of perpetual war.
All of this demands a radical rethink. As the world burns—literally—NATO is stocking up on kindling. When healthcare systems are crumbling, schools underfunded, and blazing temperatures making large swaths of the planet uninhabitable, the idea that governments should commit billions more to weapons and war is obscene. Real security doesn’t come from tanks and missiles—it comes from strong communities, global cooperation, and urgent action on our shared crises.
We need to flip the script. That means cutting military budgets, withdrawing from endless wars, and beginning a serious conversation about dismantling NATO. The alliance, born of the Cold War, is now a stumbling block to global peace and an active participant in war-making. Its latest summit only reinforces that reality.
This is not just about NATO’s budget—it’s about our future. Every euro or dollar spent on weapons is one not spent on confronting the climate crisis, lifting people out of poverty, or building a peaceful world. For the future of our planet, we must reject NATO and the war economy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Adviser Says Those Who Oppose Abrego Garcia Detention May Be 'Aiding and Abetting' Terrorism
"Americans are increasingly coming into the crosshairs" as the Trump administration wages attacks on dissenters, said journalist Ken Kippenstein.
Apr 17, 2025
Rights advocates who have expressed outrage in recent weeks over the Trump administration's expulsion of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and other migrants have based their criticism on core tenets of the U.S. Constitution—particularly the right to due process—but President Donald Trump's top counterterrorism adviser on Tuesday night suggested that defenders of basic constitutional rights are actually "aiding and abetting" terrorists.
As independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported, White House Senior Director for Counterterrorism Sebastian Gorka said in an interview with Newsmax that the divide between the Trump administration, which has sent hundreds of people to a notorious foreign prison without trial and disobeyed a Supreme Court order, and those who oppose its actions boils down to a disagreement between those who "love America" and those who "hate America."
Those committed to abandoning constitutional rights guaranteed to anyone on U.S. soil, according to Gorka, are in the former camp.
"We have people who love America, like the president, like his Cabinet, like the directors of his agencies, who want to protect Americans," said Gorka. "And then there is the other side, that is on the side of the cartel members, on the side of the illegal aliens, on the side of the terrorists."
"And you have to ask yourself, are they technically aiding and abetting them?" Gorka said. "Because aiding and abetting criminals and terrorists is a crime in federal statute."
White House 'counterterrorism czar' Sebastian Gorka says Americans who criticize deportations like that of Abrego Garcia are 'aiding and abetting terrorists' — a criminal offense. pic.twitter.com/ZdjahFyvmG
— Molly Ploofkins (@Mollyploofkins) April 17, 2025
In his newsletter, Klippenstein analyzed whether "Gorka's intensely partisan worldview be turned into government practice," noting that his comments came the day before Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) traveled to El Salvador to speak to top government officials about releasing Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who has been repeatedly accused by the Trump administration of being a "convicted" member of the gang MS-13 despite having no criminal record.
"The Trump administration has already taken the unprecedented step of formally designating a variety of 'transnational criminal organizations,' gangs and drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations," said Klippenstein. "With that in place, all the administration would have to do to turn Gorka's rhetoric into reality would be to claim that critics of Trump's immigration and deportation policies are providing them with 'material support.'"
Gorka suggested that actions such as Van Hollen's trip to El Salvador, during which he tried but was unable to make contact with Abrego Garcia, who is being detained at President Nayib Bukele's Terrorism Confinement Center, could eventually be the basis of felony charges against the senator.
The counterterrorism czar lambasted Democrats for expressing concern about "the rights of this individual," referring to Abrego Garcia.
"You mean the terrorist who came here illegally?" he said, echoing Bukele's baseless suggestion in the Oval Office of the White House earlier this week that the Maryland resident has been proven to be a terrorist.
Klippenstein warned that while Gorka's statements appeared to display a "wingnut" legal theory, the counterterrorism adviser is "much more powerful than he was in Trump's first term," when he was briefly a deputy assistant to the president and was largely dismissed as a fringe figure in Trump's orbit.
Gorka is now leading Trump's counterterrorism strategy, including the government's shift in focus toward anti-Trump protests like those that have taken place at Tesla dealerships.
"So-called Tesla terrorism and potential anti-Trump violence is driving new articulations of the threat," a senior intelligence official told Klippenstein.
Klippenstein wrote on Wednesday that Gorka's comments reveal the Trump administration's plan to cast "a wider and wider net in its new domestic war on terrorism," potentially targeting anyone who opposes Trump's flouting of court orders and his anti-immigration operation.
"While the media's focus is understandably on migrants and deportees," said Klippenstein, "Americans are increasingly coming into the crosshairs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular