After reviewing all the "news" related to the "war" against Iran, I have decided that it's mostly "fake" - almost all of it. Yes things have exploded, buildings destroyed, humans killed - no doubt, but the "news" surrounding these events is largely "fake".
In short, it is foolish to pay much heed to nonsense.
When the bombs and missiles stop falling and the drones stop buzzing, you may say the war is "over", until they start again, in which case you may say the war is "not over".
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/20364583067350…
Yes, it's all lies and deception. That's "war".
That's why one's judgement can be aided by listening to the opinions of experienced military analysts, academic & non-political geopolitical experts, and historians . . . about what is actually going on inside the fog of war, and why the war is being fought by either side.
Some useful influencers I've found are John Mearsheimer, Alastair Crooke, Douglas Macgreggor, Scott Ritter, Lawrence Wilkerson, Jeffrey Sachs, Pepe Escobar, Dmitry Orlov, Larry Johnson, Ilan Pappé, Yakov Rabkin, Glen Diesen, John Helmer, Mark Sleboda.
YouTube channels that interview these sort of critical thinkers are Dialogue Works (Nima R. Alkhorshid), Danny Haiphong, Andrew Napolitano (Judging Freedom)
Question to Google AI
Quotation from Clausewitz or others on the role of lies and deception in the art of war?
Answer
The role of lies, deception, and "cunning" in the art of war is a central point of contrast between Eastern and Western military philosophy. While Sun Tzu considers deception foundational, Carl von Clausewitz views it as a limited tool often overshadowed by the raw force of conflict.
Here is a breakdown of quotes and perspectives:
1. Sun Tzu (The Art of War - Eastern Strategy)
Sun Tzu presents deception as the cornerstone of strategy, advocating for psychological manipulation to overcome enemies without direct combat.
"All warfare is based on deception."
"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak."
"The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent."
2. Carl von Clausewitz (On War - Western Strategy)
Clausewitz acknowledges the value of surprise but argues that the "fog of war" and the high cost of elaborate deceptions often limit their effectiveness compared to raw, violent force.
"Rarely do they [craft, cleverness, and cunning] stand out amid the welter of events and circumstances."
"The best form of deception is to not tip your hand."
3. Other Perspectives on Deception
Niccolò Machiavelli: "...he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived."
Sir Basil Liddell Hart (20th Century): "While strategy is the very opposite of morality, as it is largely concerned with the art of deception, grand strategy, by contrast, tends to coincide with morality..."
Key Difference: Sun Tzu emphasizes creating a "formless" state to control the opponent's fate, whereas Clausewitz views massive, direct engagement as often more reliable than complex "trickery" in the friction of battle.
https://x.com/Grippan65Momi/status/203640379176793…
Twitter: Muhammad Kamran Momin🛰 # | Aviation | Intel | Geo
> 🚨 Showing destruction without context is storytelling — not reporting. Tel Aviv hit = headline. But what led to it? What preceded it? What triggered this phase? 🔎 Without timeline and cause, you’re only seeing the middle of the story. 💡 In modern conflicts: 👉 Every strike has… pic.twitter.com/SU4LlA9SwF [https://t.co/SU4LlA9SwF] — Muhammad Kamran Momin🛰 # | Aviation | Intel | Geo (@Grippan65Momi) March 24, 2026 [https://twitter.com/Grippan65Momi/status/2036403791767937395?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw]
TwitterI'm familiar with most of the influencers you mentioned but I don't really trust them either because they are partisan political agitators. I do like Ilan Pappe however and he has additional credibility for me being an Israeili Jew who is putting a target on his back.
But overall I think these influencers (due to their unconscious bias) place way to much crediblility in the Iranian leadership. There is a desire to perpetuate a myth that a small country can "win" against the greatest Empire in history. Vietnam is often cited as a working example of the myth, but the reality is the America simply pulled out and let the north beat the south. They could have nuked Hanoi had they wanted to.
I get it that this is all based on how you define words like "victory" and "defeat". We have this template based on 2 world wars last century, but nothing really matches the templates now. It's a different era.
Regardless of the above I 100% think that the Iranian government as it stands is doomed. Saudis have turned agains them big time, Lebanon has expelled their ambassador.
In short I think they screwed the pooch (hollywood slang for "fucked it up").