I had a fascinating conversation on the mechanics of the U.S. war propaganda with a prominent American journalist and writer, Norman Solomon. His recent book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its War Machine, made a long-lasting impression on me. Right now, we are re-living the pre-Iraq invasion days when the mainstream narrative is focused on dividing the world into “us” (the US, Israel) vs. “them” (Iran). After visiting Iraq several months prior to the invasion and researching America’s war engagements, Norman explains the similarities in Iran vs Iraq war propaganda and the techniques used by the U.S. government to package and sell war.

Echoes of Empire: War, Media, and Manufactured Consent

The current drumbeat toward conflict with Iran strongly echoes the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003. Then, as now, the U.S. media amplifies official narratives, portraying American aggression as moral duty while omitting vital context—chiefly, oil and geopolitical control. Israel’s unprovoked strike on Iran on June 13th went largely unchallenged in mainstream U.S. coverage, reflecting the double standard that justifies violence by allies and demonizes adversaries. President Trump's vague threats to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities mirror Bush-era rhetoric, relying on fear and uncertainty to rally support. The same pattern persists: silence on civilian casualties, focus on U.S. interests, and an Orwellian framing of war as peace. This isn’t foreign policy—it’s imperial theater. Just as the incubator baby hoax fueled Iraq’s invasion, new narratives are being spun to justify future violence. Americans must confront these myths before history repeats with even more catastrophic consequences.

Dehumanization, Double Standards, and the Machinery of War: A 21st Century Propaganda Playbook

In the name of democracy and security, the United States continues to escalate its militaristic foreign policy, often cloaked in Orwellian doublespeak. The rhetoric used to justify aggression toward Iran mirrors the same techniques that were deployed before the Iraq invasion: fear-mongering, fabricated threats, and dehumanization of the "enemy." Congressman Randy Fine's grotesque phrase—“mostly peaceful bombing”—reflects this toxic logic. It sanitizes war crimes and makes mass violence sound virtuous.

This propaganda relies on repetition, omission, and moral hierarchy. U.S. media endlessly repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions while ignoring or downplaying Israel’s actual nuclear arsenal. Iran, still under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and heavily inspected, is demonized. Israel, with 200 undeclared nuclear weapons and no international oversight, is portrayed as the righteous actor.

Dehumanization is central. Victims of U.S.-backed violence in Gaza, Iran, or Lebanon are rendered invisible. Their suffering is minimized or ignored, while Israeli and American pain is spotlighted. The media teaches viewers that some lives matter—and others simply don’t. This moral sorting fosters compliance and dulls public empathy.

Read more

The Problem

On February 4, 2026, the last remaining strategic arms control treaty between the United States and Russia, New START, will expire. Void of an extension of this treaty, or the activization of an alternative arms control mechanism that replicates/improves on the existing treaty, there will be an extremely high risk of both the US and Russia feeling compelled to enter an expensive and potentially catastrophic nuclear arms race.

This danger is further magnified by the Trump administration’s pursuit of a new national ballistic missile defense scheme, known as the Golden Dome, which even as a concept is destabilizing from an arms control and disarmament perspective.

The Trump administration has not articulated a clear vision when it comes to resolving the need to extend New START prior to its expiration or the complications raised in this regard by the pursuit of the Golden Dome initiative.

The Solution

Project 38 is a campaign that seeks to promote effective arms control and disarmament policy and, in doing so, avoid the dangers of a new nuclear arms race.

Project 38 has one objective: to gain access to President Trump and/or his senior national security and foreign policy advisors for the purpose of making a 38-minute “elevator pitch” on the need for an alternative policy approach toward arms control and disarmament between the United States and Russia.

This pitch will emphasize

(a) the political importance of arms control in so far as it fulfills the core campaign promise made by Trump of seeking peace and stability while avoiding nuclear war.

(b) the increasing danger of inadvertent nuclear conflict between the US and Russia;

(c) the importance of arms control in stabilizing relations between the United States and Russia and decreasing the threat of nuclear conflict; and

(d) the destabilizing impact that missile defense has on achieving meaningful disarmament and facilitating a nuclear arms race, together with the fiscal and technical challenges faced by the Golden Dome concept which impact its viability as a concept.

The goal of this briefing is to get President Trump to consider policy initiatives to

(a) engage meaningfully on extending New START as a means of sustaining strategic stability between the United States and Russia regarding nuclear weapons;

(b) to begin negotiations with Russia to craft a replacement arms control treaty with Russia that avoided a new arms race which promoting further cuts in the nuclear arsenals of both the United States and Russia; and

(c) to delay efforts to deploy the Golden Dome shield while these arms control talks are underway, with the understanding that a successful negotiation would preclude the need for the Golden Dome system.

Implementation

Project 38 is grounded in the events of January 13, 2018, when the citizens of Hawaii were informed that there was a ballistic missile inbound to their location, that they needed to seek shelter, and this was not a drill.

For the next 38 minutes the citizens of Hawaii believed that they were living their last moments on earth, and they collectively had to deal with the emotional and psychological consequences of that reality.

Fortunately, the alert was a false alarm. But for 38 minutes those who received the notification believed that they and their loved ones were about to die. For them, those 38 minutes were as real as it could get.

Project 38 asks, and answers, two questions that are derived from this 38-minute experience:

(1) If you could go back in time, six months prior to the missile that would take your life and those of your loved ones being launched, what would you be willing to do to prevent that launch?

(2) Why aren’t you doing it now?

Project 38 seeks to answer these questions by seeking out meaningful engagement with the Trump administration at the highest possible level to affect the kind of policy formulation and implementation which would create the conditions necessary to prevent the kind of event hypothesized during the Hawaiian false alarm event.

Project 38 is operating on a very aggressive schedule intended to achieve results prior to the expiration of the New START treaty on February 4, 2026.

Project 38 is, in many ways, a straight up business proposition: in exchange for the 38 minutes of terror induced by the lack of meaningful arms control policy during his first term, President Trump will provide 38 minutes of access to a team of specialists seeking to make sure there are no failures of arms control policy going forward that could induce a similar event.

Project 38 will comprise two primary tracks—access and content.

The access track is designed to bring Project 38 to the attention of President Trump and/or his senior arms control decision making advisors. To accomplish this, Project 38 will undertake the following:

Produce a 38-minute documentary film. This film, 38 Minutes, will describe the threat of nuclear war through the narrative of Hawaii’s 2018 missile alert and introduces the principal Project 38 partners and the essence of their message for President Trump. Project 38 will promote and disseminate the 38 Minutes film in a manner which maximizes exposure while focusing on gaining the attention of the desired audience.

This can include:

(a) Standard distribution techniques such as film festivals and online streaming;

(b) Showing the documentary to a live audience in Lafayette Park in Washington, DC in a manner where the screen is visible to the White House;

(c) Getting the movie shown to influential persons; and

(d) Direct outreach to the White House once sufficient attention has been drawn to the film and its mission.

The content track is the responsibility of a contemporary Team B, the competitive analysis group of outside experts commissioned by the CIA in 1976 to evaluate the existing analysis about Soviet strategic nuclear forces.

The new Team B would consist of top level individuals possessing expertise in the following areas of specialization:

(a) Policy and Politics

(b) Nuclear Threat

(c) Arms Control

(d) Missile Defense

(e) Presidential Briefing Techniques.

Team B would be responsible for preparing a 38 minute “elevator pitch” for President Trump and/or his senior policy advisors. A suggested breakdown for this briefing is provided below:

(a) Introductory remarks/political and policy issues

(b) Nuclear war threats

(c) Arms control solutions

(d) Missile defense fallacies

(e) Conclusion/closing comments

Team B would provide interview-based content for the 38 Minute film derived from the respective presentations of the constituent members.

Team B would prepare a “deliverable” in the form of a briefing book that would “stay behind” in the case of a formal presentation to the White House.

Team B would be prepared to carry out follow-on tasks if required to further the Project 38 mission objectives, especially if requested to do so by the White House.

Project 38 Execution Timeline

The 38 Minutes film should be ready for dissemination by mid-September 2025.

A Team B briefing complete with “deliverable” should be ready for delivery by October 1, 2025.

Access influence operations will commence once the film and Team B briefing are completed. The focus of geographical effort will be the Washington, DC area. Various venue options will be explored.

Outreach to targeted audiences will take place concurrently with access influence efforts.

The goal is to achieve White House access before the end of the 2025 calendar year.

Funding and Support

Project 38 represents a very aggressive solution to a very pressing issue operating on a extremely limited timetable.

To successfully implement the goals and objectives, Project 38 will require funding sufficient to the task. As such, the Project 38 team is soliciting donations that would enable work to begin starting at the end of this month, and carry the project through the end of the year.

Concluding thought:

A missile is inbound to your home. This is not a drill, and there is no escape.

If you could go back in time six months, what would you be willing to do to make sure that missile would never be launched?

And why aren’t you doing that now?

Project 38 gives you a chance to participate in an effort designed to prevent the kind of missile launch threat that terrorized the citizens of Hawaii back on January 13, 2018, and which, if nothing is done to prevent it, could terrorize you and your family in the not so distant future.

Help us change history.

Help us save America.

Help us save the world.

Please donate today.

Subscribe now

Donate

Dr. Pascal Lottaz of Neutrality Studies and I discussed the escalating Israel-Iran war.

Western Double Standards and Normative Collapse

Israel’s June 13, 2025, strike on Iran, framed as a “preemptive” action, raises serious legal and ethical concerns. Under international law, particularly the UN Charter, only acts of self-defense in response to an actual or imminent attack are lawful. Preemptive strikes are narrowly defined and require a truly immediate threat, while preventive strikes, based on future hypothetical risks, are explicitly illegal. Israel's justification—citing Iran’s potential to develop nuclear weapons in one to two years—clearly falls into the preventive category.

The Western response, particularly the G7’s endorsement of Israel’s actions, exemplifies a dangerous double standard. Similar actions by other nations, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, are condemned, yet Israel receives consistent political and moral cover. This selective application of international law erodes global norms and credibility.

Moreover, Israel’s ongoing use of “self-defense” to justify offensive actions mirrors historical Western colonial practices, framed today through a modern, Orwellian distortion of language. The result is the weakening of legal definitions and moral standards, pushing the world closer to a lawless, power-driven order.

To preserve a rules-based international system, violations must be condemned consistently, regardless of the actor. Anything less undermines justice, accountability, and the principles of global peace and security.

Manufacturing Consent for War: The Iran Narrative and Western Strategy

For decades, Western powers have maintained a narrative that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat. From Netanyahu’s repeated warnings since the 1990s to Cold War-era fears dating back to 1984, this rhetoric echoes the false justification for the 2003 Iraq War. Despite repeated claims, no credible intelligence supports the assertion that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Recent testimony from U.S. intelligence, including from Tulsi Gabbard, confirms there is zero evidence of such intentions.

This persistent narrative is not just misinformation—it’s strategic. The goal, critics argue, is to create the conditions necessary for war. Once military actions begin, facts on the ground take over, and any debate is sidelined. The real objective, some suggest, is not peace or democracy, but destabilization—a “scorched earth” policy that fragments adversaries, ensuring Israel's dominance in a chaotic region.

The West's ability to control the public narrative is crucial. By presenting military aggression as "humanitarian intervention," they exploit good intentions to sell destructive wars. As history shows in Iraq and Libya, the result is failed states, mass suffering, and long-term occupation. The current campaign against Iran risks repeating these tragedies on a much larger scale.

Read more