American Psycho

Where is the opposition to this deranged autocrat? Where is “the resistance”? Who among American leadership is pushing back against this obvious war crime? Where are the fiery condemnations from the Democratic Party against this promised atrocity? Where is the American media? Why have they abandoned even the pretense of moral responsibility to tell the truth about what is happening in this country? How has this failed businessman, this reality-TV personality, cowed an entire generation of politicians, pundits, journalists, businessmen, soldiers, and intellectuals?

Every major institution in the United States seems unwilling or unable to resist. That isn’t just weakness; it’s complicity.

2026-04-07T15:09:32+00:00Categories: Depravity, War|Tags: , , , , |

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s Letter to the American Public

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

To the people of the United States of America, and to all those who, amid a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives, continue to seek the truth and aspire to a better life:

Iran — by this very name, character, and identity — is one of the oldest continuous civilisations in human history. Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination. Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers — and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbours — Iran has never initiated a war. Yet it has resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.

The Iranian people harbour no enmity toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighbouring countries. Even in the face of repeated foreign interventions and pressures throughout their proud history, Iranians have consistently drawn a clear distinction between governments and the peoples they govern. This is a deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness — not a temporary political stance.

For this reason, portraying Iran as a threat is neither consistent with historical reality nor with present-day observable facts. Such a perception is the product of political and economic whims of the powerful — the need to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets. In such an environment, if a threat does not exist, it is invented.

Within this same framework, the United States has concentrated the largest number of its forces, bases, and military capabilities around Iran — a country that, at least since the founding of the United States, has never initiated a war. Recent American aggressions launched from these very bases have demonstrated how threatening such a military presence truly is. Naturally, no country confronted with such conditions would forgo strengthening its defensive capabilities. What Iran has done — and continues to do — is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defence, and by no means an initiation of war or aggression.

Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally hostile, and early interactions between the Iranian and American people were not marred with hostility or tension. The turning point, however, was the 1953 coup d’etat — an illegal American intervention aimed at preventing the nationalisation of Iran’s own resources. That coup disrupted Iran’s democratic process, reinstated dictatorship, and sowed deep distrust among Iranians toward US policies. This distrust deepened further with America’s support for the Shah’s regime, its backing of Saddam Hussein during the imposed war of the 1980s, the imposition of the longest and most comprehensive sanctions in modern history, and ultimately, unprovoked military aggression — twice, in the midst of negotiations —against Iran.

Yet all these pressures have failed to weaken Iran. On the contrary, the country has grown stronger in many areas: literacy rates have tripled —from roughly 30 per cent before the Islamic Revolution to over 90pc today; higher education has expanded dramatically; significant advances have been achieved in modern technology; healthcare services have improved; and infrastructure has developed at a pace and scale incomparable to the past. These are measurable, observable realities that stand independent of fabricated narratives.

At the same time, the destructive and inhumane impact of sanctions, war, and aggression on the lives of the resilient Iranian people must not be underestimated. The continuation of military aggression and recent bombings profoundly affect people’s lives, attitudes, and perspectives. This reflects a fundamental human truth: when war inflicts irreparable harm on lives, homes, cities, and futures, people will not remain indifferent toward those responsible.

This raises a fundamental question: Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war? Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behavior? Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country ‘back to the stone ages’ serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?

Iran pursued negotiations, reached an agreement, and fulfilled all its commitments. The decision to withdraw from that agreement, escalate toward confrontation, and launch two acts of aggression in the midst of negotiations were destructive choices made by the US government —choices that served the delusions of a foreign aggressor.

Attacking Iran’s vital infrastructure — including energy and industrial facilities — directly targets the Iranian people. Beyond constituting a war crime, such actions carry consequences that extend far beyond Iran’s borders. They generate instability, increase human and economic costs, and perpetuate cycles of tension, planting seeds of resentment that will endure for years. This is not a demonstration of strength; it is a sign of strategic bewilderment and an inability to achieve a sustainable solution.

Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime? Is it not true that Israel, by manufacturing an Iranian threat, seeks to divert global attention away from its crimes toward the Palestinians? Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar — shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests?

Is ‘America First’ truly among the priorities of the US government today?

I invite you to look beyond the machinery of misinformation — an integral part of this aggression — and instead speak with those who have visited Iran. Observe the many accomplished Iranian immigrants —educated in Iran — who now teach and conduct research at the world’s most prestigious universities, or contribute to the most advanced technology firms in the West. Do these realities align with the distortions you are being told about Iran and its people?

Today, the world stands at crossroads. Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before. The choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential; its outcome will shape the future for generations to come. Throughout its millennia of proud history, Iran has outlasted many aggressors. All that remains of them are tarnished names in history, while Iran endures —resilient, dignified, and proud.

2026-04-01T21:43:16+00:00Categories: Humanity, War|Tags: , |

Gaza and Iran Affirm Dems Are Only Controlled Opposition

True to form, the Democrats immediately signalled their readiness to fund the war, on the assurance that there was a ‘plan’. As Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin put it, ‘we’re in it’. They had no disagreement of principle, having been fully complicit themselves in the Gaza genocide – all they offered was cavilling about process and tactics. And why not? The Democrats had long assimilated Trump’s first-term foreign policy lines regarding China and the Middle East. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies vied to out-hawk Trump on negotiations with Iran: ‘no side deals’ they insisted. The Democrats voted through Trump’s massive military spending bill; they gave a standing ovation for his sabre-rattling against Iran in the State of the Union address; there was also quiet admiration in the Democratic establishment – openly expressed by Hillary Clinton – for the way he bullied European vassals into bumping up their NATO spending…

A striking datum of this war is how few attempts have been made at selling it, rhetorically dignifying it, morally arming it or situating it in some context of shared Western interests. While the belligerati rehearse exhausted arguments about armed liberation, Pete Hegseth waxes lyrical about ‘death and destruction from the sky all day long’; while they talk de-escalation, Trump demands ‘UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER’; where they seek intelligibility, the administration offers barefaced lies, evasions, contradictions and grandstanding. Of course, since the Gaza genocide, in which Washington spearheaded a global coalition behind a far-right extermination campaign while liberal apologists cultivated a studied obliviousness, the belligerati have refined their capacity for cognitive dissonance. But the situation has moved on. They may once, two decades ago, have been useful to a violently adventurist, rightist administration going to war – but no more. The right no longer caters to, nor needs, its liberal outriders. They hang on out of habit.

— Seymour, Richard. “Cognitive Dissonance.” NLR/Sidecar, New Left Review, 19 Mar. 2026.

Conscientious U.S. Service Members: Call 1-800-379-2679

Everyone was so kind it makes me cry with shame.

The land of Iran is as incredibly diverse as its people. There are mountainous rain forests and desert salt flats. I met among the most liberal and most conservative people there, and everything in between. Everyone was so kind it makes me cry with shame.

— Jonathan AC Brown, Professor of Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University

2026-03-14T02:42:22+00:00Categories: Humanity|Tags: |

How Bombing A People Is Framed As Liberating Them

For privacy reasons YouTube needs your permission to be loaded.

Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), discusses the propaganda infrastructure that has been built over decades to manufacture public consent for the U.S. bombing of Iran. He outlines a coordinated network of Israeli and Saudi-backed media outlets, Washington think tanks (like the Washington Institute for Near East Peace and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), and AIPAC-aligned lobbying groups that have systematically worked to present war as “liberation”—including running influence operations targeting the Iranian diaspora to create the false impression of broad Iranian support for regime change via military force.

Abdi details how Israeli intelligence was caught running bot farms and troll networks to boost the profile of Reza Pahlavi (the deposed Shah’s son) as a puppet figurehead, and how Iranian-Americans who oppose the war have faced coordinated intimidation, threats, and silencing campaigns.

He also addresses the political dynamics inside the U.S., noting that only around 25% of the American public supports the war, that the Senate’s War Powers vote fell largely along party lines, and that the conflict is already showing signs of destabilization just days in — with CIA-backed ethnic separatists reportedly being armed and reports of covert operations designed to foment civil war rather than achieve any clean military objective. He draws parallels to the Iraq War propaganda playbook while warning that this conflict may unravel faster, and calls on ordinary people and advocacy organizations to pressure lawmakers before the situation becomes irreversible.

Read Abdi’s piece “Inside the Iran War Industry” for The Nation here.

Go to Top