Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/03/2026 7:27:54 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan
Who is winning the war between the US, Israel and Iran? The coverage in many Western media outlets clearly indicates that Iran is the major winner. The reality is that sections of the Western media have framed the conflict with two separate definitions of victory. For the US to be victorious, it must successfully install a new regime with a stable political system. For the Iranian regime to be the winner, it simply has to remain in power, no matter how much it is weakened.
What the media does not know is what the ultimate objectives of the US’ Operation Epic Fury and Israel’s Operation Roaring Lion are. What are they really looking to achieve and what would be considered a successful outcome? Faced with this uncertainty, the Western media has too often stuck to the narrative that, as long as the Iranian regime remains in place and continues firing missiles, it is the winner.
There is no doubt that Tehran is a master of asymmetric warfare. It is the regime’s signature. This is what terrorism and armed proxies have delivered for it over recent decades — at the cost of destroying the lives of millions of Lebanese, Syrians and Iraqis. This is what it is still pursuing during this war. Due to its importance to global oil flows, the entire focus is now on the Strait of Hormuz blockade. Some Western media outlets have translated this into proof that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a master of asymmetric warfare and the clear current victor.
Another important point is that, because Europeans were neither warned about nor prepared for this war, there is widespread resentment and spite toward the US and Israel. This is evident in the series of analysts and experts appearing on news channels. The war is depicted as lacking clear objectives and coverage focuses mainly on Iranian offensive strikes. Yet, if we look at the totality of this coverage — including experts close to decision-making centers in European capitals — a real fear emerges: the fear of having no control, not only over this war but over the global scene as a whole. This coverage is therefore attempting to shift that fear into the narrative of a major US military failure.
President Donald Trump’s declarations have created even more confusion among these journalists. They do not understand or know what is coming. One might ask: Is that not a net positive for the military operations? Would the US and Israel really want the IRGC to know exactly what was happening and what they were planning? This is also unfamiliar territory for the media. During the last Iraq war, President George W. Bush issued a clear ultimatum with a clear goal: the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime. With boots on the ground, this objective was achieved swiftly. But the day-after scenario was a failure due to the Iranian regime’s infiltration.
There is also strong anti-Trump sentiment in most Western legacy media, in the US as well as in Europe. Since the war in Gaza, and with few exceptions in France, Benjamin Netanyahu is similarly criticized. The left strongly influences the portrayal of the Iranian regime as the oppressed and the US as the oppressor.
Everything the regime has done — or is doing, including terrorism and killings — is framed as defensive, justified by the threat of the US military. Some media coverage has therefore given both the military advantage and the moral high ground to the regime, absolving it of decades of violent, terrorist and murderous activity. Decades of exporting terror are reframed as resistance. Unsurprisingly, this echoes in Lebanon, with Hezbollah even being depicted as heroic.
Similarly, attacks on the Gulf countries are emphasized, yet when condemnation is required — as it was for the US and Israeli strikes — the media largely looks the other way. They fail to mention that these countries have not participated in the attacks and remain defensive. The reality is that some in the media are pleased by these strikes. Spite and resentment guide this way of thinking.
The Gulf countries, which have become the center of global geopolitical negotiations and a destination for some of Europe’s brightest minds, have been seen as deserving these blows for surpassing European capitals in terms of relevance. While some European militaries have been supportive on the ground, analysts and former diplomats on television stations and social media — such as Gerard Araud, the former French ambassador to the US, Israel and the UN — have been reposting and promoting anti-Gulf ideas, aligning even with representatives of the Iranian regime.
Moreover, in the West, leftist movements are politically aligned with the Greens, who despise anything fossil-fuel related. They understand that the regime targets energy supplies to pressure the West and the US to halt the war — and this is music to their ears.
Yet, despite this noise, what does the situation on the ground tell us? The US-Israeli military campaign has delivered overwhelming strikes that have dismantled key pillars of Iran’s military power. These joint operations have left the regime with an estimated 1,000 or fewer operational missiles, zero meaningful production ability, a functionally annihilated navy and severely limited defensive or retaliatory options. This renders the regime’s offensive arsenal and nuclear ambitions effectively neutralized.
According to the Institute for the Study of War, the number of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones launched by the Iranian regime has severely declined in the past month. US assessments report an 83 percent to 95 percent drop in drone volume. This indicates two things: first, the degradation of the regime’s capacity; and, second, a shift from heavy strikes to a lower frequency but consistent launches.
High interception rates and the use of less costly ways to intercept projectiles are also undermining the regime’s strategy. While severe damage can still occur, the Iranian regime’s objective has failed. To the ire of sections of the Western media, the Gulf countries remain strong and firm.
There is no doubt about the outcome of this war. Despite some media coverage and the Strait of Hormuz blockade, this regime has been defeated, along with its proxies. It was struck in the same way it has lived and, as the saying goes, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. Those in the media who once stood silent in the face of the Iranian regime’s violations of international law are now vocal about US actions, with their hatred for Trump amplified in this coverage.
While we do not yet know who will succeed any surviving Khamenei in Iran, the regime is likely to face the same fate as that of Saddam Hussein and other rogue states in the region. The day after will bring the prosperity that the region has long been robbed of. Just don’t rely on the Western media to cover it.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I’m not sure why anyone with an ounce of wisdom would consider an Arab news media outlet to be any more credible than Rachel Maddow.
What are they really looking to achieve and what would be considered a successful outcome?
Factoid: Iran is larger than Alaska.
“I’m not sure why anyone with an ounce of wisdom would consider an Arab news media outlet to be any more credible than Rachel Maddow.”
You certainly need a filter, I agree.
Arabnews.com is the semi-official news outlet of Saudi Arabia. It is state owned and generally more pro-USA than our own MSM, albeit definitely serving the interest of the royal family.
If you want to know what Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is thinking, this is the place to go.
Iran covers 636,372 square miles, Alaska 665,384 square miles.
An intelligent person could make many reasonable arguments about the war….right/wrong, to soon/to late, “legal”/“illegal” …..tactics, strategy etc.
but there are (at least) three arguments that are absurd:
It’s unprovoked
Iran was not a threat
Iran is winning
Only the truly ignorant, fools and morons make these assertions
“Factoid: Iran is larger than Alaska.”
True but irrelevant.
L
Not true, but still irrelevant.
As posted (and I checked), Iran covers 636,372 square miles, Alaska 665,384 square miles.
So, false AND irrelevant.
America succeeding after not even bothering to consult them and after they didn't participate in any way just shows everybody how irrelevant they are.
Nor I. But I would like to see the Iranian Mullahs hoisted up on cranes rather than properly hanged like Saddam.
Not when the population supports the regime, which is the case here.
I don’t know how trustworthy “Arab News” is, but there are a couple of valid points in this article.
To the Iranians, just not dying is a victory for them.
It’s like the Black Night in the Monty Python skit- after getting both arms and legs cut off, he still says “Right. I’ll do you for that!”
“What the media does not know is what the ultimate objectives of the US’ Operation Epic Fury and Israel’s Operation Roaring Lion are.”
This article must be translated from Arabic. Because this is such a poorly structured sentence it makes my skin crawl.
That, and it is presents the whole, “We don’t know the goals” line. How many times does the administration have to state their goals.
I used to run into this all the time at work. Employees would say they did not understand the performance standards. When you would sit with them and try to pinpoint their confusion you would discover that it wasn’t a matter of misunderstanding. They understood quite well. They did not like them or agree with them—which is an entirely different thing.
Trump should just tell the EU, “You are dismissed.”
General Caine stated at the outset what the objectives were:
- Ensure the end of the nuke program
- Eliminate Iran’s ability to project power outside its own borders
As far as I can tell, neither has been completely accomplished. There is more work to do.
“Not when the population supports the regime, which is the case here.”
You base that on what, exactly?
Not to mention those who are completely in the "Let's Hate Trump" crowd, and there are lots of those.
Your reply was a surprise. Looked deeper.
The AIs say Iran is bigger by 10%, but can be called smaller by 4% if you include the long Alaska coastline’s territorial waters.
Interesting tweak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.