This is false, James DID support the war in Iran, and he even says Iraq wasn't that bad. My 16-post thread rebuttal to your claims - linked below:
bsky.app/profile/zany...
Whether he is:
1. Biased, intentionally misrepresents facts, exercises self-censorship, is selective with the facts,
2. or it's an editorial decision,
3. or if he's a victim of misinformation,
4. or if he's just ignorant
It's UNFORGIVABLE. He does a lot more harm than people realize...
His position is: Trump is bad, but the Iranian "regime" is worse, so Trump should go for it, because no one else can.
And now that Trump has, James is pretending to be all against it.
It's absolutely sickening, I will not let him forget it, and I will keep on trying to expose him for it.
Lastly, yes, I encourage everyone to go listen to his show that day like you suggested. They will hear a masterclass of hysteria + propaganda by the Ferret Emperor James O'Brien 👑, of that I have no doubt.
James even says the Iraq war was well-intentioned, it's just the way it was done that was terrible! 🤦♂️ Has he never heard of the WMDs? He's ok with false pretences?! And then you'll tell me he's not a centrist establishment warmonger...
He muddies the water and confuses things, but he is 💯 pro-war.
...we shouldn't forget his initial impulse was to not draw attention to it. That's how I see it, and to me that's totally vile.
Yes it was not clear who was responsible at that time, but still, their murder should have been front and center - as an avoidable tragedy of a war of choice.
Worth remembering: it took James 1 hour + 14 minutes on his show on Monday 2nd March before he even mentioned - in passing! - the slaughter of the 185 Iranian children by the US. And just the once in the whole show.
Now he's seen which way the wind is blowing, he's talking about it a lot, but...
Because he wants to demonize the Iranian "regime", and he doesn't want to shine too bright a light on western "regimes".
I've been listening to James for years, and his position on Iran, and his unhinged attacks on the left, are his 2 biggest failings, and completely unforgivable.
Or this? 👇
All this happened just as the Iranian "regime" came to power, before their so-called "terrorism" was a thing, and before any "nuclear ambitions" were a glimmer in the Ayatollahs eyes.
It's important historical context which James rather conveniently doesn't consider or mention.
Why, for instance, when James calls the Iranian "regime" hideous, does he never mention things that radicalized them and make them hate the west? Like this for instance? 👇
foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/e...
4. He repeatedly portrays the Iranian "regime" as a two-dimensional cartoon villain who is objectively evil, full-stop. No consideration of their history, their legitimate grievances, the source of their mistrust and paranoia, nothing.
There are numerous incidents of rioters killing Iranian policemen, setting fire to mosques, hospitals, etc., and later confessing to being paid to do so by US/Israeli spy agencies - something which has verified historical precedent. How come all that doesn't even merit a mention by James?
The currency got devalued by 5000% over the same period, whereas it was stable before. In January it suffered a sharp drop again.
3. James never EVER mentions the fact that CIA/Mossad was instigating these riots, or even offers it up as a possibility that they were, when they said so themselves!
2. He never gives important context to the initial protests - that it was Trump who set fire to the JCPOA and imposed crippling sanctions in 2018, culminating in widespread economic suffering and these protests in Iran - back in 2018, Iranian inflation was less than 7%, and by 2025, it was 50%.
And even if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, see how he frames the entire discussion- it's a masterclass in how to manufacture consent:
1. He presents unverified claims, if not outright lies, as facts. "30000 dead protesters" "state-sanctioned murder and violence" "nuclear ambitions"
JAMES LITERALLY SAYS "I THINK HE SHOULD" (about Trump going in to "sort out" the Ayatollahs). What on earth else could he mean but a military solution i.e. war?
I went back to listen to his monologue of that day, and I'm even more convinced now that I'm right and you're talking complete nonsense.
James absolutely did voice full throated support for a war on Iran, he set out his position very clearly, how on earth you can think otherwise defies belief... 🧵
It's a rhetorical question, a good one, and you have a point, I agree.
I'm trying to shine a light on the morally bankrupt media ecosystem + media personalities that enable and prop up these types of amoral, devious, duplicitous politicians, and do propaganda for illegal, unethical, immoral wars.
We care about the suffering of average Irania...oh, wait...
foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/e...
"All the things that good people should be prepared to go to war for, are on the ground in Iran"
- James O'Brien, 29 January 2026 👇
bsky.app/profile/zany...
"All the things that good people should be prepared to go to war for, are on the ground in Iran"
- James O'Brien, 29 January 2026 👇
bsky.app/profile/zany...
Well, if you're still giving James the benefit of the doubt, let me dispel that for you. "Man of peace" James O'Brien was thumping his chest and calling for Trump to attack Iran just a month ago👇 Now he's seen which way the wind is blowing, he's changed his tune accordingly. bsky.app/profile/zany...
Reminder: James is cosplaying as a critic of Blair now, but tickled his tummy in several interviews over the years, helping to launder his reputation. The first ever episode of Full Disclosure was with Tony Blair!
Reminder: "Man of peace" James O'Brien was thumping his chest and calling for Trump to attack Iran just a month ago👇. Now he's seen which way the wind is blowing, he's changed his tune accordingly.
bsky.app/profile/zany...
There are other possible explanations (Important: none of them will excuse James) but the point is - yes I could be wrong about it, but that was clear to anyone who can understand the meaning of words.
Note: I'm not backpedaling. I'm just explaining the meaning of words to you.
Is that clear?
I didn't say "definitely" because I don't know for a fact that he is definitely forbidden.
But given the facts of James's coverage, it is one of the explanations that to me personally APPEARS to explain them. Ok?
Ok fine, I'll explain the meaning of words to you.
I didn't say "forbidden". I said "seem to be forbidden" and "seemingly forbidden".
Which means "apparently forbidden", and not "definitely forbidden" like you took it to mean.
You seem to have a hard time understanding words. I'm not going to waste my time explaining them to you.
You were born yesterday I presume?
The topic is Trump, and his non-stop lies, it's not really about the bombing of the school, numbnuts...
