Lew Rockwell Institute

As the smoke clears in America, what kind of image greets a foreigner? Violence that makes international news nearly always has political worth. Anyone paying attention from abroad has got to see the similarity to sports team loyalties.

Fans who are on it, before grisliness online is taken down, can even resort to instant replay. The ubiquity of cameras has hyped up the game. What’s on a video gets exponentially more ink, blabber and outrage than any mere report can convey. One motion picture is worth millions of words. Much of the language is heartfelt, but, crass as it is to say, more of it is cashing in.

Mourning noises are expected etiquette, inaudibly though, you can almost hear the grief-casters thinking, ‘how does this work for us, how soon should waterworks cease and scorched Earth aggression begin?’

Restraint is generally the exception. Jumping the gun and pointing fingers before reliable facts are known has become the norm. That kind of haste stung in Jussie Smollett’s case. The newsmouths take no heed. They still squander what they see as opportunity, before any certainty arrives.

At the risk of taking sides myself, this needs saying: there are some differences between what are in fact ‘fan bases,’ however crude the term is right now, that should not go unnoted. Look at the coverage.

The newsy industry might tell us how misleading the visuals can be. Did anybody see the Kirkonians blocking traffic, torching town or making off with cases of the good stuff after the murder? If only Charlie had been resisting arrest at the time, riotousness could be fully condoned and justified.

Kirk’s murder has placed a recurring debate point upfront again. We keep rehearing the ongoing score. Partisan political violence is like golf – the lower for your side the better. Stats cited by Mehdi Hasan, The Washington Post, Dan Goldman and numerous others find the left wing consistently under par on the ideologically motivated homicide course.

Comparative figures blasted daily in podcasts have placed 333 out of 444 so-called “terrorist” killings between 2013 and 2022 at the feet of the “right wing.” The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report gives 179,301 as the number of murders over that period. 333 comes to 0.185721%, or about 1/500th, of the total. Dividing by 444 would not move things left of the decimal point. This leaves a susceptible observer with the, supposedly qualified, conclusion that nearly 179,000 murders can safely be ruled out as ideologically inspired.

Where then, would closer examination of individual cases take us? Presumably Dylan Roof and Peyton Gendron’s slaughters are counted among that 333. What about slayings like Iryna Zarutska’s? Does Decarlos Brown muttering about “white people” have any bearing? Does even asking this question in numerous instances of crime evoke “racist” hackles? The mere fact of ruling the demographics of crime, and criminal motivation, morally out of bounds gives rise to monsters like Roof, Gendron, Brown and many others in the first place. It gets worse. When the race of criminal and victim differ, why are editorial principles flexible? Media managers who stoop to switching standards must think they’ve speciated from lowly consumers. Marks that don’t fall for the con can be conveniently labeled “racist.”

A classic example of giving certain victims precedence over others occurred when Andrew Lester shot Ralph Yarl for ringing his door bell. A week later, Robert Singletary shot 6-year-old Kinsley White and her father William – one bullet grazing the mother – after a basket ball rolled into Singletary’s yard. The Washington Post had 3 front page stories – all mentioning race of the shooter in the headline – on Lester’s crime. Another opinion piece that Sunday did the same. A single page 2 story brought up Singletary’s act. The word “White” only came up because of the victims’ surnames. In the middle of that article both Yarl and Trayvon Martin got mention.

Is anyone naïve enough to believe these kinds of editorial priorities play no part in cranking up violent cranks? If whiteness is overwhelmingly prone to reach description in criminal narratives only when a Caucasoid does it, where does that leave the default? Have we reached a place where noticing that descriptive disparity can be characterized as “racist” in itself?

Around 75,000 murders between 2013 and 22, went unsolved. How reliable can the number 333 be in our understanding of a culprit’s “wing” in the clutter of unknowns about teeming criminal carnage? The subjectivity in judicial findings of “terror” came up again in a ruling on the Luigi Mangione case. New York Judge Gregory Carro found insufficient evidence of a motive to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government unit” as prescribed in statute. Should that have been left to a jury? Was similarly judicial fastidiousness applied in those 333 cases?

The reality is that journalistic, academic and political fads have been clouding precise and unbiased treatment of criminal behaviors for ages. Who takes it worse at trial and sentencing shifts with what’s in style at the moment. Laymen are expected to accept that present hot legal trends have finally got it right. People with any cool presence of mind know that human fates can swing wildly as emotions are stoked by polemicists with a mic. A potential upside of that is that anyone fearing punishment should be warier than ever about attacking others in a fickle human environment. The downside is that people inclined to act irrationally can be motivated witnessing literary, academic and legalistic absurdity.

I can no longer count how often claims that Tyler Robinson had “no known motive” have surfaced in both podcast and written media. What spurred the killer is as clear as what did it for James Earl Ray. The one’s making political hay out of Kirk’s tragic death search desperately for a “Raoul.” The axe-grinding industry’s greatest conflagrations are kindled with innuendo of a nefarious plot. Tragic events provide opportunity … to proclaim “they” were all in on it. Guilt, spewed out with a manure spreader, can gather a lot of political momentum.

Herschel Grynszpan killed Ernst vom Rath, but did no harm to Nazis plotting Kristallnacht. Victims of that pogrom might ask whose side Hersh thought he was on? There’s little telling where gratuitous violence may lead. Kirk’s demise has given Mehdi Hasan a new reason to bring up January 6, 2021 and half that magic number 666. Meanwhile, Marc Thiessen’s Washington Post column is titled “Yes, the left has a political violence problem.” In that article polling, which can be as lacking in precision as the “333,” has the “woke” coming off as the trigger happiest on the spectrum.

Anytime violence is prima facie political, reactions fall into place with eerie neatness. Ooh, how it hurt the grievance movement when Jussie Smollett got caught. And, golly gee, how others prayed that Jan 6 was an FBI false flag. Likewise, summer 2020 some still swear, was really the work of Proud Boys and allies. And, has Trump ever backed off his unsupportable claim that immigrants are rapey animals from Gehenna? Goebbels’ Sender Gleiwitz PR has become the inspiration for 21st century American factional exploitation. You might wonder if the diehards of either “side” find all bad news good.

Articles and books like “White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy,” by Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman, have often been criticized as hitting wide of the mark. It’s a strange comfort to some Americans to find the slander true. They’ll stick by the facts they like to believe. Others prefer that crossing into city limits is risking life and limb across the country – and refuse to accept stats on crime rates dropping. It’s hard for anyone gazing intently, not to see a desire by political sectarians for their opponents to be lynchers or cutthtroats. The crimes they pretend to abhor are TD bombs in the perpetual Super Bowl of political capital.

What might improve things is unequivocally literal description and properly weighted editorial allotment of copy. Criminal violence has the same consequences for the victim whatever his attacker was thinking. It often looks like the purportedly aggrieved, when violence happens against one of their own, were thinking “now we’ve got ‘em, run out the clock.” Placing coverage in order to “get” some faction or demographic is propaganda whatever the ideological motivation. Words aren’t violence but putting them in where they don’t belong, or subtracting them where they do, certainly fuels unwelcome outcomes.

If understanding what reality is is your goal you’ll always find yourself in the same place: wanting to know. If you already know you can find out nothing. Fans in the spectator sport of ideological carnage already know. “They” are out to get us and soon it’ll go so far we have to strike back. The chance that mediacrats will ever wise up to this reality doesn’t look good. They can find no hope in the proles.

The post My Terror Beats Your Terror appeared first on LewRockwell.

The drumbeats of war are no longer distant echoes, they are thundering across the Middle East, reverberating through global capitals, and shaking the foundations of the post–Cold War international system. What once seemed like speculative alarmism is now unfolding as a meticulously orchestrated geopolitical endgame, with Iran, Israel, and the United States locked in a high-stakes confrontation that promises to be anything but brief or contained.

Forget the so-called “12-Day War” of recent memory. Sources within defense and intelligence circles confirm that the next phase will not be a surgical strike or a limited retaliation, it will be a full-spectrum, decapitating campaign aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, military command, government officials, proxies and regional influence in stages of overwhelming blow. Yet this time, the calculus has shifted dramatically.

During the Trump administration, officials confidently claimed that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been “bombed into the ground,” rendering them inoperable for years. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his inner circle echoed this narrative, projecting an image of irreversible strategic victory. But that was then. What happened again? Is it because Iran refused to cooperate with IAEA? No, not at all. Today, Iran has signaled, unequivocally, that it will show no restraint this time around, Did Israel forgot it had to appeal to Trump to step in bring the last conflict to a close? No! They want Iran crushed. Should hostilities erupt, which will definitely do very soon, Tehran has made it clear it will not only retaliate against Israel but will also target U.S. military assets and interests across the region. Crucially, Iran has warned that any country hosting American bases used to launch attacks against it will be considered a legitimate target. This is not bluster; it is doctrine.

Netanyahu, besieged by domestic unrest, international condemnation over Gaza, and mounting protests from a global coalition critical of Zionist policies, is running out of time. Analysts suggest that opening a new front with Iran may serve a dual purpose: diverting global attention from the humanitarian catastrophe in Palestine while creating the fog of war necessary to escalate operations in Gaza with reduced scrutiny. In essence, a war with Iran could become the smokescreen for a final, devastating push in the occupied territories.

The scale of military mobilization confirms these intentions. Under directives linked to President Donald Trump and current Pentagon leadership, there has been an unprecedented surge in the deployment of heavy weaponry to the Middle East. Fighter jets, glide bombs, and—most tellingly—large consignments of gravity bombs have been moved into position across U.S. and allied bases. You do not transport such ordnance unless you intend to use it.

Even more revealing is the reactivation of Cold War–era protocols. The U.S. Department of Defense has quietly restructured command channels in a manner reminiscent of the War Department’s mobilization before World War II. The reason for the recent summons to generals and admirals worldwide, signaling a shift to war footing. Meanwhile, dozens of KC-135 and KC-46 aerial refueling tankers now sit in Qatar, assets that exist solely to enable deep-strike missions over Iranian territory. The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group looms in the Mediterranean, a textbook prelude to escalation. Meanwhile, the geopolitical chessboard is fracturing along new fault lines. The U.S. recently signed a sweeping defense pact with Qatar, declaring that any attack on the emirate constitutes a direct threat to American national security. This isn’t about Qatar—it’s about securing Al Udeid Air Base from Iran missiles, the largest U.S. military installation in the region, as a launchpad for operations against Iran.

Yet the U.S. arsenal is not without vulnerabilities. With SM-6 missile inventories critically low, planners are reportedly relying on old Tomahawk cruise missiles, subsonic, slower, and more susceptible to Iran’s increasingly sophisticated air defenses. This reliance on legacy systems underscores both urgency and strategic risk. With Iran signalling the readiness to use advance weapons integrated with air defense.

Iran, for its part, is far from passive. Intelligence from regional sources indicates Tehran has fortified its asymmetric warfare capabilities. Its ultimate trump card? The Strait of Hormuz. Just 21 miles wide, this maritime chokepoint handles nearly 20% of the world’s oil exports. Even a partial closure would send oil prices soaring past $200 a barrel, trigger global supply chain collapse, and ignite economic chaos from Berlin to Beijing. Iran doesn’t need to win militarily, it only needs to make victory unbearably costly for its adversaries. We see Kurdish quick supply of oil to the global market, an alternative move the West played, in the case of Iran oil blockade, but sources have said even Kurdish will not be able to serve that purpose.

Iran Executive Six Mossad Operatives

Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, has allegedly been orchestrating covert destabilization campaigns in northern Iran via Azerbaijan. But this shadow war suffered a major setback when six operatives were captured and executed, a stark reminder that Iran is watching, and ready.

Regionally, no nation can remain neutral. Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi faces mounting pressure to act, as public outrage over perceived complicity with Israel grows. Pakistan, backed by China and possessing a nuclear arsenal it has declared “an Islamic deterrent,” stands ready to intervene if Israel crosses the nuclear threshold. Riyadh’s recent nuclear umbrella agreement with Islamabad is no coincidence, it’s a hedge against total regional collapse, to be on the safe haven of Western allies and Islamic State protection.

Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state that refuses to be sidelined. Backed by robust Chinese financial and military support, Islamabad has quietly repositioned itself as a key deterrent in the Islamic world. Pakistani officials have reiterated that their nuclear arsenal is not solely for national defense but is, in their words, “an Islamic shield” available to any Muslim nation facing existential threat. While never explicitly naming Israel, the implication is clear: should Tel Aviv resort to nuclear weapons in a desperate attempt to “decapitate” Iran, Pakistan may not remain neutral. The mere possibility of nuclear escalation however remote, adds a terrifying layer of unpredictability to an already volatile equation.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, long straddling the fence between East and West, may soon be forced to choose a side as domestic unrest swells and opposition forces demand decisive action. The Iran-Israel crisis could be the catalyst that finally pulls Ankara off the sidelines. In a move that signals a dramatic shift in regional power dynamics, Turkey recently denied passage to an Indian naval vessel reportedly en route to support Israeli operations in the Eastern Mediterranean. This isn’t mere bureaucratic friction, it’s a calculated geopolitical statement. By blocking the warship’s transit through the Turkish Straits under the Montreux Convention, Ankara has effectively lifted a finger, not in aggression, but in assertion. It’s a quiet yet unmistakable declaration that Turkey will no longer serve as a passive corridor for military actions it opposes, especially those aligned with Israel during a period of escalating tension with Iran.

Meanwhile, the United States has placed its entire global military command structure on high alert. From CENTCOM to EUCOM and INDOPACOM, readiness levels have been elevated to near-crisis status. Commanders across all theaters are being instructed to maintain constant operational preparedness, not just for potential direct conflict with Iran, but for cascading contingencies that could erupt from the Middle East to the South China Sea. This synchronized posture reflects a doctrine of “full-spectrum dominance,” but also reveals deep anxiety within the Pentagon: the fear that a regional war could spiral into a multipolar confrontation.

The Houthis of Yemen are far from passive observers in the escalating Iran-Israel-U.S. crisis, they are active, and have confirmed they will go all out against Israel. Their are now capable, and increasingly audacious players reshaping the regional balance of power. No longer reliant on rudimentary rockets, Houthi forces have developed and deployed a new generation of precision-guided, long-range missiles and drones capable of striking deep inside Israeli territory with alarming accuracy and minimal warning. Intelligence assessments confirm these systems, some reverse-engineered with Iranian assistance, others indigenously engineered, can now bypass layered air defenses and reach Tel Aviv, Haifa, and even Dimona without significant difficulty.

More than a military capability, this advancement is a strategic declaration: the Houthis have made it unequivocally clear that any large-scale U.S.-Israeli assault on Iran will trigger an immediate and sustained campaign against maritime traffic in the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. They have vowed to bring global shipping to a standstill, targeting commercial vessels linked to Israel, the U.S., or their allies. Given that nearly 12% of global trade and 30% of container traffic between Asia and Europe passes through this chokepoint, such a blockade would inflict immediate economic shockwaves worldwide, spiking insurance premiums, rerouting supply chains, and potentially triggering a second energy and commodity crisis.

This is not theoretical posturing. Recall how, Trump administration, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier strike group was abruptly withdrawn from the Eastern Mediterranean after Houthi threats intensified, officially framed as the result of a “diplomatic understanding,” but widely known as a tacit acknowledgment of Houthi deterrence. The message was clear: even the world’s most powerful navy hesitates when asymmetric actors control critical maritime arteries.

Meanwhile, Iraq has taken a firm stance: Baghdad has formally declared it will not permit its airspace or territory to be used by any belligerent faction in a future conflict. This is a significant shift from past permissiveness and reflects growing Iraqi sovereignty concerns, public anti-American sentiment, and pressure from powerful Iran-aligned factions within its own security apparatus. Should the U.S. or Israel attempt to route strikes through Iraqi skies, they risk not only diplomatic rupture but potential retaliation from Iraqi paramilitary groups. Though Azerbaijan is on the side of the Israel, and it airspace open for Israel use, is also on the line of attack from Iran.

Now, as tensions surge again, the Houthis are signaling they will act as Iran’s western flank, tying down U.S. naval assets, stretching Israeli air defenses, and forcing Washington to fight a multi-front shadow war it never planned for.

China and Russia have moved swiftly to bolster Iran’s defensive and offensive capabilities. Just weeks ago, Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow formalized a trilateral defense cooperation treaty, cementing what many analysts now describe as an “anti-hegemonic axis.” Intelligence reports confirm the delivery of advanced air defense systems, electronic warfare suites, precision-guided munitions, and even satellite intelligence-sharing protocols to Iran. These aren’t symbolic gestures; they are force multipliers designed to deter, delay, and if necessary, inflict unacceptable costs on any coalition attempting a strike on Iranian soil.

Disturbing intelligence assessments suggest the United States could exploit the chaos of an Iran-Israel conflagration to launch a simultaneous “law enforcement” operation in Venezuela, framed as a renewed “war on drugs” but functionally serving as a strategic diversion. By igniting a secondary crisis in Latin America, Washington could flood global news cycles with narratives of cartel violence and narco-terrorism, effectively drawing public attention and journalistic scrutiny away from military actions in the Middle East. Such a tactic would mirror historical precedents where secondary conflicts were used to mask primary geopolitical maneuvers.

The once-celebrated 21-point U.S.-Israel coordination framework for Gaza-Palestine now lies in tatters. Both nations are reportedly suspending other regional operations to concentrate entirely on what insiders refer to as “the Iran phase.” Military preparations are complete, with activation windows reportedly opening as early as late October. The urgency is palpable—and deeply political.

And behind it all looms a deeper, more insidious agenda. Critics warn that this manufactured crisis could serve as the final domino in the so-called “Great Reset”—a global power consolidation masked as emergency response. In the wake of economic shock, governments may fast-track Central Bank Digital Currencies, enforce universal digital IDs, and implement programmable money systems under the guise of “stability” and “security.”

Together, these developments reveal a world no longer governed by unipolar dictates but fractured into competing spheres of influence, shadow alliances, and covert red lines. Turkey’s blockade, Venezuela’s vulnerability, Pakistan’s nuclear posture, and Israel’s media machine are not isolated events, they are interconnected nodes in a global crisis architecture. What unfolds in the deserts of Iran may well echo in the boardrooms of Beijing, the corridors of Ankara, the slums of Caracas, and the digital feeds of billions.

This is more than a regional war in the making. It is the birth pang of a new world order, one defined not by treaties alone, but by who controls the narrative, the oil, the data, and ultimately, and the so called truth.

This is not merely a regional conflict. It is a battle for the soul of the 21st century, a clash between multipolarity and digital authoritarianism, between sovereignty and surveillance, between chaos and control.

The world stands at a precipice. The 12-Day War was a prelude. What comes next may redefine or dent civilization itself.

This article was originally published on Ultimate-Survival.

The post The World Stands at a Precipice. The 12-Day War Was a Prelude appeared first on LewRockwell.