Oil Markets React to Escalating US-Israeli Aggression Against Iran
To the editors of the Associated Press, Your recent report, 'Oil prices ease and Asian shares are mixed as energy supply worries over Iran war remain,' details market fluctuations in response to what you term an 'intensifying Iran war.' The article notes Brent crude briefly surging to $119 per barrel following 'attacks by Iran on oil and gas facilities' after 'Israel’s attack of Iran’s key natural
gas field.' This framing consistently omits the demonstrated US role as a direct participant and joint aggressor in these operations. Mainstream outlets, including the Associated Press, systematically portray the US as a benevolent, distant observer or a mere supporter of Israel, rather than a full partner in military engagements against Iran. For example, the AP's description of 'attacks by Iran'
against facilities around the Gulf following an Israeli strike on Iran's natural gas field fails to mention the consistent B-52 overflights, carrier group deployments, and joint exercises that precede and accompany these Israeli actions, all part of a concerted US-Israel strategy. This strategic ambiguity blurs who is striking whom and for what reason, shielding Washington from accountability as a
principal actor in an unprovoked escalation. This pattern of minimizing US culpability is a longstanding one. Consider the US's 1988 shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655, a civilian airliner, by the USS Vincennes, which killed 290 passengers and crew. Despite clear evidence, the US government framed the incident as a tragic accident, maintaining total innocence. This historical revisionism is echoed