DETAILS: US launches NEW strikes on Iran after Strait of Hormuz threat

Persia was invaded by the quaresh tribe,if anything.,and its version of god which is barbaric.

why cant you see what your doing to me when you dont believe a word im saying?

Just nuke IRGC and finish the job

So after this blitz of strikes, the ships vessels can safely cross the strait. I would not take the risk even if US says it is so.

i dont want to aggrivate on monday far be it from me but i love america and i will not stand down

9. “Iran has no capability left” and “Iran remains an enormous threat” coexist without embarrassment

This contradiction appears throughout both the segment and the comments.

Iran is described as devastated, blind, depleted, third-rate, and nearly finished.

At the same time, it supposedly controls global energy, attacks ships, threatens allies, launches drones, manipulates negotiations, infiltrates American institutions, and could destabilize the world.

Both can be partly true: conventional forces may be damaged while asymmetric capabilities remain. But that requires careful analysis.

The propaganda version uses whichever description justifies the next strike:

Iran is weak, so finish it now.
Iran is strong, so we cannot stop.
Iran is negotiating, so it is stalling.
Iran is not negotiating, so force is necessary.

Every road leads to escalation.

10. The more thoughtful comments are the skeptical ones

A few commenters ask the obvious questions:

“They keep telling us Iran has nothing left, yet it keeps attacking. What is really going on?”

“The strait was open before this started.”

“This will continue for another decade.”

“Where does Fox find these experts?”

“What congressional authority exists?”

“I voted for no new wars.”

Those are closer to genuine democratic reasoning because they test claims against outcomes.

If officials repeatedly announce that Iran is devastated, yet attacks continue, then citizens should question either the damage assessments, the definition of success, or the entire strategy.

That is not weakness. It is accountability.

11. The expert’s role is advocacy disguised as analysis

The guest is introduced with academic and institutional credentials, which gives her claims an aura of authority. But credentials do not exempt someone from evidentiary standards.

She admits uncertainty about who controls Iran, then speaks confidently of “the bad guys.” She asks for “more time” without defining how much. She portrays regional reactions as proof that the strategy is working, while giving limited attention to the possibility that regional states are organizing because the war has made them less secure.

That is not neutral expertise. It is a policy position.

The network could have invited:

a former diplomat,
an international-law scholar,
an Iranian political specialist,
an energy-market analyst,
a military skeptic,
or a humanitarian expert.

Instead, it selected a guest whose framework broadly validates continued force.

That is source selection as framing. The conclusions are influenced before the interview begins by choosing which kinds of experts are permitted to define the problem.

12. Why would a political scientist participate?

We cannot know her personal motives without evidence. Saying she appears “for money” would be speculation unless compensation is documented.

Possible incentives include:

genuine ideological conviction;
professional visibility;
institutional influence;
access to policymakers;
promotion of a preferred security agenda;
prestige within a political network;
media exposure for an affiliated institution;
or financial compensation.

The deeper issue is not her private motive. It is the role she performs.

She lends academic legitimacy to a discussion structured around predetermined assumptions. Her credentials may cause viewers to interpret advocacy as disinterested expertise.

A scholar appearing on television has every right to advocate a position. But the program should identify ideological affiliations clearly, challenge claims, present competing expertise, and distinguish evidence from prediction.

Without that, the academic title becomes a credibility prop.

13. Populism is visible throughout the discussion

The comments repeatedly divide the world into morally purified categories:

ordinary patriotic people;
corrupt elites;
weak politicians;
treacherous diplomats;
insane enemies;
and one strong leader who must act decisively.

Populist rhetoric distrusts institutions and complexity. Experts are accepted only when they validate the crowd’s preferred conclusion. Courts, diplomats, inspectors, legislators, and journalists become obstacles when they introduce nuance.

The crowd wants immediacy:

Stop talking.
Stop negotiating.
Bomb harder.
Finish it now.

That impatience is politically dangerous because democracy is intentionally slow. Deliberation, evidence, authorization, legal review, and negotiation exist partly to prevent emotional majorities from demanding irreversible catastrophes.

Fox News and the Manufacture of a Political Reality Fox News is not merely a news organization with a conservative perspective. Much of its prime-time programming functions as a political persuasion system: it selects facts, strips them of inconvenient context, places them inside an emotional narrative, and repeatedly tells viewers whom to fear, whom to blame, and whom to trust. That does not mean every Fox report is false or that every Fox journalist is dishonest. Fox sometimes conducts legitimate reporting. The deeper problem is that its news operation exists inside a larger network dominated by opinion personalities, partisan framing, emotional agitation, and political advocacy. Investigative accounts of Fox repeatedly describe the blurring of journalism, entertainment, Republican politics, and audience management. Gabriel Sherman’s The Loudest Voice in the Room examines how Roger Ailes built Fox into a powerful conservative political institution; Brian Stelter’s Hoax and Network of Lies examine the interdependence between Fox, Donald Trump, and an audience that often punished the network whenever facts conflicted with preferred political narratives.

Network Propaganda Fox News is like the National Enquirer of news. It’s like Roseanne Barr talking about the Purple People Eater controlling the world from Fresno. It’s just ridiculous. It’s not based on thinking; it’s based on emotionalism. Please understand: in a democracy, you have to think. This is not thinking. They’re trying to change our emotions and appeal to the lowest common denominator of human behavior