Netanyahu pitched the war on Iran as a repeat of Israel’s apparent 'audacious feat' of smashing Hezbollah. The US president should have noted instead Israel’s moral and strategic defeat in Gaza.

The joint US-Israeli war on Iran has thrust back into the spotlight a divisive debate about whether the dog wags the tail, or the tail wags the dog. Who is in charge of this war: Israel or the United States?

Western publics are softened up for aggressive, global US militarism – of the kind now only too evident in the war on Iran – through the Pentagon’s chokehold on thousands of blockbuster films and TV shows.

Raffi Berg may be fighting in the courts for damages from Owen Jones, but it's really the BBC in the dock – for being utterly wedded to an editor whose objectivity on Israel is so clearly in question.

There is no clear rationale from Washington for the attack on Iran because the author of this attack is not to be found in either the White House or the Pentagon. This plan was cooked up in Tel Aviv decades ago.

In this catastrophic war of choice, it is Tehran fighting a rearguard action to restore geopolitical sanity. If Iran loses, god only knows where Israel and the US will drag the world next. The world’s fate, in a real sense, is in Tehran’s hands.

At the Munich Security Conference, the US announced its intent to crush all opposition to its permanent status as imperial top dog – even if that means destroying everything, and all of us, in the process.

The political and media classes that once venerated Mandelson and are now cutting him adrift are the same ones that spent five years destroying Corbyn.

Palestine Action wasn’t banned because it’s a terrorist organisation, a new documentary shows. It was banned because large corporations, like the weapons firm Elbit Systems, have captured the UK government.

It took considerable courage for the jury in the Palestine Action trial to ignore the demands to convict from the judge, the government, the police and the media. Instead they weighed the actual evidence and found the prosecution case was legal chicanery.