Part 1 of this series argues that elites aggressively seek to acquire and control resources and power—primarily for their own personal enrichment. Part 2 outlines how the Western elites enact this agenda against nations that are targeted for resource pillage and inclusion within the broader sphere of Western influence for ongoing power projection and exploitation. Part 3 deals with narrative as a tool of war. This part provides an overview of the common propaganda narratives used against key targets of the empire.

“So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.””

GEN. WESLEY CLARK interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

― Edward Bernays, Propaganda

The following catalogue of the principal propaganda narratives employed by the USA and its allies against they key target nations of the last few decades, specifically China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

These propaganda narratives are presented without undue criticism or rebuttal. To be effective, most propaganda narratives require some element of truth within them to make their tale credible to the casual observer. In presenting these narratives, I have not taken much effort to analyse the truthfulness of the various claims and assertions from which they are composed. It is hoped that the reader will take some time to research and reflect on a range of different perspectives before reaching his or her own position as to the truth of the matters. In the end, my position is that all propaganda involves some sort of lie and in my view the propaganda narratives documented are inevitably damaging to the peaceful co-existence of the world’s community of nations and people.

A. China

Western propaganda narratives about China are designed to portray the country and its leadership under the Communist Party of China (CPC) as a threat to global security and regional stability, as well as global democracy and human rights. The narratives commonly used promulgate an image of China that includes human rights abuses, economic aggression, military expansionism, and propaganda and disinformation.

Key high level narratives assert that:

• China is a destabilising force and a threat to global security and regional stability
• China is an economic predator that steals intellectual property and unfairly competes in the world market
• China does not respect human rights or democratic values and a threat to the global community
• China is a dangerous country that is not to be trusted and is willing to use any means necessary to achieve its goals.

The key propaganda narratives employed by the USA and the West against China include:

Human Rights Abuses: This narrative suggests that China’s government engages in widespread human rights abuses against its own citizens, including repression of political dissidents, religious and ethnic minorities, and censorship of information. Allegations of forced labour, surveillance, and suppression of freedom of expression are also included in this narrative.

According to the dominant high-level Western propaganda narratives, Russia is considered a threat to global security and democracy, and is ruled by a repressive and authoritarian regime with rampant corruption and a weak rule of law. Many of these accusations to impose economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure on Russia.

Key high level narratives assert that:

• Russia poses a threat to global security
• Russia poses a threat to global democracy
• Russia is a repressive and authoritarian regime
• Russia is a country where the rule of law is weak and corruption is rampant.

The key propaganda narratives employed by the USA and the West against Russia include:

Aggression towards neighbouring countries: This narrative suggests that Russia is an aggressive and expansionist state that seeks to undermine the sovereignty of neighbouring countries, including Ukraine and Georgia. The Western media often portrays Russia as a threat to the stability of Europe and its neighbours in the region.

The narrative that Russia engages in aggression towards neighbouring countries is a significant part of the broader propaganda narrative that Russia poses a threat to global security. Critics argue that Russia has engaged in a range of aggressive actions towards its neighbours, including military interventions, annexation of territory, and support for separatist movements. Russia’s actions in Ukraine, including the annexation of Crimea and support for separatist rebels in the Donbass region, have been particularly controversial. Russia has also been accused of engaging in cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilising neighbouring countries and undermining their democratic institutions.

The accusation that Russia engages in aggression towards neighbouring countries has contributed to a broader narrative of Russia as a country that is willing to use force and intimidation to achieve its goals. Russia’s actions have sparked concerns about the security of neighbouring countries and the stability of the international system. Critics argue that Russia’s aggression is motivated by a desire to expand its influence and challenge the existing world order.

Election Interference: This narrative suggests that Russia interferes in the elections of other countries, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The Western media often depicts Russia as a malicious actor seeking to undermine democratic institutions and sow discord in foreign countries.

Critics argue that Russia has a history of attempting to interfere in the democratic processes of other countries, including the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Russia has been accused of using a range of tactics to interfere in elections, including hacking, disinformation campaigns, and propaganda. Russia’s purported interference in the 2016 US presidential election is perhaps the most well-known example of this, but similar allegations have been made about other elections as well.

The 2016 US election interference narrative alleged that the Russian government, under the direction of President Vladimir Putin, interfered in the 2016 United States presidential election in an effort to help then-candidate Donald Trump win the election. The narrative claimed that Russian hackers targeted the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, releasing stolen emails in an effort to damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The narrative was used to support allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, and to justify sanctions and other actions against Russia. While the narrative has been the subject of significant controversy and debate and has now been widely discredited, it has been and remains accepted fact by many in the US government and media.

Russia’s alleged election interference has sparked concerns about the integrity of democratic processes and the role of foreign powers in influencing the outcome of elections. The accusation that Russia engages in election interference has contributed to a broader narrative of Russia as a country that does not respect democratic values and that seeks to undermine democratic institutions in other countries. Critics argue that Russia’s interference is motivated by a desire to weaken its rivals and expand its own influence.

Human Rights Abuses: This narrative suggests that Russia’s government engages in widespread human rights abuses against its own citizens, including the repression of political dissidents, journalists, and minorities. The Western media often depicts Russia as a repressive regime that suppresses freedom of expression and political opposition.

Critics argue that Russia has a poor record on human rights, with a history of suppressing free speech, press freedom, and political dissent. Russia has been accused of using a range of tactics to silence critics, including arbitrary arrests, harassment, and physical violence. Critics have also raised concerns about Russia’s treatment of minority groups, particularly the LGBTQ+ community, and its handling of issues like immigration and refugees.

Russia’s alleged human rights abuses have sparked concerns about the treatment of vulnerable populations and the state of civil society in the country. The accusation that Russia engages in human rights abuses has contributed to a broader narrative of Russia as a country that does not respect fundamental human rights and that is willing to use force and intimidation to silence dissent. Critics argue that Russia’s human rights abuses are motivated by a desire to maintain political control and suppress opposition to the government.

In this context, succession of alleged poisonings involving Russian dissidents and defectors have been used to support a propaganda narrative that portrays Russia as a hostile actor and a violator of human rights. Specific events have involved Alexander Litvinenko, Sergei Magnitsky, Sergei Skripal, and Alexei Navalny:

• In 2006, is was alleged that Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian spy, was poisoned with a radioactive substance called polonium-210 in London. Litvinenko accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of involvement in his poisoning before he died. The British government concluded that the Russian state was probably involved in the killing, which led to strained relations between the UK and Russia. However, the Russian government has denied any involvement in the incident and refused to extradite the two main suspects, who were said to be Russian agents. The case remains controversial and subject to ongoing investigation and debate.
• In 2009, another human rights based propaganda narrative used against Russia centres around the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow prison. According to the narrative, Magnitsky was jailed and eventually died as a result of exposing a massive tax fraud scheme involving Russian officials. Based largely on the contested allegations of hedge fund manager and an American-born British financier, Bill Browder, this narrative has been used by Western governments and human rights organisations to condemn Russia for its human rights abuses, and has led to the implementation of the Magnitsky Act, which imposes sanctions on Russian officials implicated in Magnitsky’s death and other human rights abuses. The Magnitsky Act has been a point of tension between Russia and the West, with Russia imposing counter-sanctions and accusing the West of interference in its internal affairs.
• In March 2018, former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found unconscious on a park bench in Salisbury, UK. The UK government quickly pointed the finger at Russia, alleging that the Skripals had been poisoned with a nerve agent known as Novichok, which they claimed was developed in Russia. The UK and its allies, including the US, quickly expelled Russian diplomats and imposed sanctions on Russia. The Russian government denied any involvement and called for an independent investigation, which they claimed was being blocked by the UK government. Once again, the UK government put forward two suspects, who it was claimed were Russian agents by the NATO and Atlantic Council associated investigative media organisation, Bellingcat. The incident escalated tensions between Russia and the West and led to further sanctions and diplomatic expulsions. The often confused and contradictory Skripal poisoning narrative has been widely used to portray Russia as a hostile actor and to justify further actions against Russia by the UK and its allies.
• In August 2020, the Russian government was accused of being responsible for the attempted assassination of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. According to the narrative, Navalny was poisoned with Novichok—the same nerve agent as alleged in the Skripal poisoning event. The poisoning was portrayed as a blatant violation of international law and human rights, and was widely condemned by Western governments and international organisations. This narrative was also used to justify sanctions against Russia and increased tensions between Russia and the West. However, Russia has denied any involvement in the poisoning and has accused Western governments of using the incident as a pretext to impose sanctions and interfere in Russia’s domestic affairs.

Support for Authoritarian Regimes: This narrative suggests that Russia supports authoritarian regimes around the world, including the government of Syria, and seeks to undermine democratic movements in other countries. The Western media often portrays Russia as a destabilizing force in international relations.

Support for authoritarian regimes is a common criticism of Russia’s foreign policy. Critics argue that Russia has a history of supporting regimes that are repressive and authoritarian, including Syria, Belarus, and Venezuela. Russia has been accused of providing these regimes with military support, economic aid, and political backing, despite concerns about their human rights records and political freedoms. This has led to concerns that Russia is willing to undermine democracy and support authoritarianism in pursuit of its geopolitical interests.

The accusation that Russia supports authoritarian regimes has contributed to a broader narrative of Russia as a country that is willing to support regimes that do not respect basic human rights or democratic principles. Critics argue that Russia’s support for these regimes undermines international efforts to promote democracy and human rights, and that it contributes to instability in the regions where these regimes are located.

Corruption and Oligarchy: This narrative suggests that Russia’s political and economic systems are rife with corruption, and that a small group of oligarchs control much of the country’s wealth and political power. The Western media often depicts Russia as a kleptocracy that prioritises the interests of the ruling elite over those of the general population.

The narrative that Russia’s political and economic systems are corrupt and controlled by a small group of oligarchs is a common criticism of Russia’s governance. Critics argue that the country’s political and economic systems are deeply intertwined, with powerful oligarchs exerting undue influence over government decisions and policies. This has led to concerns about crony capitalism, with powerful business interests shaping the country’s economic policies to their own advantage.

The accusation that a small group of oligarchs control much of Russia’s wealth and political power has been fuelled by high-profile cases of corruption and financial malfeasance involving powerful figures in Russian society. Critics argue that these cases are indicative of a broader culture of corruption and that the country’s political and economic systems are structured to benefit a small group of powerful individuals. This has led to concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in Russia’s governance, and has contributed to a broader narrative of Russia as a country where the rule of law is weak and corruption is rampant.

Notwithstanding the many steps taken under the leadership of Vladimir Putin to address these issues, the narrative of corruption and oligarchic control persists in Western media and political discourse. Putin has himself been subject to a number of accusations of corruption and oligarchic favouritism. One key accusation is that Putin and his close associates have enriched themselves at the expense of ordinary Russians. For example, in 2016, a group of investigative journalists published the “Panama Papers”, which revealed how Putin’s close associates had amassed offshore accounts and shell companies to avoid taxes and hide their wealth. The papers suggested that Putin himself may have benefited from this system of offshore accounts. Another accusation is that Putin has created a system of crony capitalism, in which his friends and associates are given privileged access to government contracts and resources. This system is said to have benefited a group of wealthy businessmen known as the “oligarchs”, who have amassed huge fortunes by leveraging their connections to Putin and his government.

Evil Leader: The “evil leader” propaganda narrative is a tactic used to vilify and demonise a foreign leader or government, often with the goal of justifying military or economic action against them. The evil leader propaganda device has also been used against Russia, with President Vladimir Putin often portrayed as a corrupt, ruthless dictator who suppresses dissent and violates human rights. For instance, according to an article in The Guardian, Putin is a criminal and incompetent president and an enemy of his own people. The narrative alleges that Putin is behind numerous human rights abuses, including the imprisonment of political dissidents, the murder of journalists, and the poisoning of political opponents (see above).

One specific example of this propaganda narrative is the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia. The Western media and politicians portrayed Putin as an aggressor who was violating international law by annexing Crimea, and used this narrative to justify sanctions and other actions against Russia. Putin was also accused of backing separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine, which led to further condemnation and sanctions from the West. The narrative was further reinforced by allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, with Putin being portrayed as a villain who was seeking to undermine American democracy. This narrative has been used to justify sanctions against Russia and to further isolate the country on the international stage.

C. Iran

Iran has been subjected to several propaganda narratives by the West and the USA. These narratives have been used to justify the aggressive policies of the United States and its allies towards Iran and paint it as a rogue state that poses a grave threat to international peace and security.

Key high level narratives assert that:

• Iran is a rogue state that is actively pursuing nuclear weapons
• Iran is a destabilising force in the Middle East and treat to human rights
• Iran is a hotbed of anti-Semitism and hatred towards Jews.

The key propaganda narratives employed by the USA and the West against Iran include:

Nuclear Ambitions: This narrative portrays Iran as a rogue state that is actively pursuing nuclear weapons, despite international sanctions and pressure. The Western media often depicts Iran as a nuclear threat to the world and its neighbours in the Middle East.

The narrative that Iran has nuclear ambitions has been a longstanding issue that has been repeatedly used by the United States and its allies (particularly Israel) to justify their aggressive actions against Iran. This narrative has been used to paint Iran as a rogue state that poses a grave threat to international peace and security, and to justify the imposition of severe economic sanctions on the country. The US and its allies have repeatedly accused Iran of secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons program, despite Iran’s consistent denials that its nuclear program is peaceful in nature. This narrative has been further bolstered by the fact that Iran has not always been forthcoming about its nuclear activities, and accusations that it has been slow to allow international inspectors access to its facilities.

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been a vocal critic of Iran’s nuclear program and has repeatedly accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons. In a 2012 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Netanyahu famously presented a cartoonish diagram of a bomb to illustrate his concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. See also accusations of Iranian anti-Semitism below.

While Iran has repeatedly stated that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons, and that its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes, the US and its allies have continued to push the narrative of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, using it as a justification for their aggressive policies towards Iran. This has led to a situation where Iran is viewed by many in the West as a pariah state that poses a grave threat to international peace and security, despite there being significant evidence to the contrary.

Support for Terrorism: This narrative suggests that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism that provides financial and material support to various extremist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The Western media often portrays Iran as a destabilising force in the Middle East, and blames the country for various terrorist attacks around the world.

The accusation that Iran supports terrorism is one of the most significant propaganda narratives that the United States and some of its allies have used against Iran. The narrative suggests that Iran provides material support, financial aid, and weapons to various militant groups across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and various Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria. The United States and its allies have accused Iran of being the primary state sponsor of terrorism globally, and this has formed a significant part of the case for imposing sanctions on Iran.

Iran has consistently denied these allegations and accused the United States and its allies of using the terrorism narrative as a cover for their real goal, which is to weaken Iran and its regional influence. Iran argues that it supports legitimate resistance movements against Israeli and American aggression in the region, and it sees its support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas as a way to counterbalance the power of Israel and the United States in the Middle East. Despite the lack of concrete evidence to support the terrorism narrative against Iran, the United States and its allies have used it to justify their various actions against Iran, including sanctions, covert operations, and diplomatic isolation.

In recent years, the United States and its allies have also accused Iran of being involved in terrorist plots and attacks outside of the Middle East, including in Europe and South America. These accusations have further strengthened the narrative that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and they have provided the United States and its allies with justification for their aggressive stance towards Iran.

Human Rights Abuses: This narrative suggests that Iran’s government engages in widespread human rights abuses against its own citizens, including the repression of political dissidents, journalists, and minorities. The Western media often depicts Iran as a repressive regime that suppresses freedom of expression and political opposition.

The propaganda narrative that Iran’s government engages in widespread human rights abuses against its own citizens is largely based on reports from western human rights organisations (e.g. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) and media outlets (e.g. BBC, The Guardian and The New York Times). According to these sources, the Iranian government has been accused of using torture, arbitrary detention, and other forms of mistreatment against political dissidents, religious minorities, and other individuals who are seen as a threat to the regime. The government has also been accused of suppressing freedom of speech and assembly, and of limiting access to information through censorship and online surveillance. Additionally, there have been reports of widespread discrimination against women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other marginalised groups in Iran.

For instance, some accusations of human rights violations concern crackdowns on organisations such as the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), which is a political and militant organisation that advocates for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Iranian government has targeted MEK members and supporters, arresting and executing many of them, prompting criticism from Western human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. It is of note that the MEK is supported by some politicians and groups in the United States and Europe who advocate for regime change in Iran and argue that the MEK represents a legitimate opposition to the current Iranian government.

Anti-Semitism: This narrative suggests that Iran is a hotbed of anti-Semitism and hatred towards Jews, and portrays its leaders as Holocaust deniers. The Western media often highlights instances of anti-Semitic rhetoric by Iranian leaders, such as the former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The propaganda narrative that Iran is a hotbed of anti-Semitism and hatred towards Jews has been perpetuated by various groups and individuals, including media outlets and political figures. One of the most prominent examples is the Israeli government, which has consistently accused Iran of being a threat to the Jewish people and the state of Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has frequently spoken out against Iran’s supposed anti-Semitic rhetoric, and has called for the international community to take action against Iran’s nuclear program. In addition to the Israeli government, other political leaders and groups in the United States and Europe have also promoted the narrative of Iranian anti-Semitism. For example, former US President Donald Trump and his administration frequently accused Iran of being a state sponsor of terrorism and engaging in anti-Semitic rhetoric.

One of the main pieces of evidence cited in support of this narrative is Iran’s support for the Palestinian cause and its opposition to the state of Israel. Iran’s leaders have frequently made inflammatory statements about Israel, including calling for its destruction and referring to it as a “cancerous tumor”. This rhetoric has been widely criticised and condemned by Jewish organisations, politicians, and the international community as promoting anti-Semitism and inciting violence against Jews. Additionally, Iran has been accused of providing support to groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which have been designated as terrorist organizations by Israel and the United States, and which have carried out attacks against Israeli civilians.

Destabilising Influence in the Middle East: This narrative suggests that Iran is a destabilising force in the Middle East, seeking to expand its influence and spread its ideology. The Western media often portrays Iran as a threat to regional stability, citing its involvement in conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

The narrative that Iran is a destabilising influence in the Middle East has been widely propagated by the United States and its allies, who accuse Iran of supporting regional militias and terrorist groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas. The US and its allies also claim that Iran has been involved in proxy wars in Iraq and Syria, providing weapons, training, and financial support to these groups in order to advance its regional agenda. This narrative has been used to justify economic sanctions against Iran, as well as military action, including the assassination of Iranian military leaders.

One of the key factors driving the narrative that Iran is a destabilising influence in the Middle East is Iran’s involvement in conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Iran has supported the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad since the beginning of the Syrian civil war, providing military advisors, weapons, and funding to the Syrian army and various pro-government militias. Similarly, Iran has supported various Shia militias in Iraq, providing them with weapons, training, and funding to fight against the Islamic State group and other Sunni extremist groups. While Iran argues that it is fighting against terrorism and supporting legitimate governments in both countries, the US and its allies argue that Iran’s actions are fuelling sectarianism and prolonging the conflicts. Additionally, Iran’s support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen is seen by some as contributing to the ongoing conflict in that country.

Notably, Israeli politicians and leaders have accused Iran of being a destabilising force in the Middle East on several occasions. They have claimed that Iran supports terrorist groups and militias across the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, and that its actions are aimed at promoting regional instability and expanding its influence. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been particularly vocal in his criticism of Iran, and has called for increased international pressure on the country to curb its alleged destabilising activities.

Evil Leader: The “evil leader” propaganda device has also been used against Iran, with the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, being portrayed as a dangerous and irrational figure. Western media outlets often highlight Iran’s human rights abuses and support for militant groups as evidence of Khamenei’s evil intentions. The US has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, which it claims is being directed by Khamenei. This allegation has been used to justify economic sanctions and military threats against Iran, as well as increased support for its regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel.

In addition to Khamenei, former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was also often portrayed as an “evil leader” by Western media during his tenure. He was frequently criticized for his anti-Semitic statements and his controversial remarks about Israel. The US and its allies have also accused Iran of supporting terrorism and destabilizing the Middle East region. These allegations have been used to justify economic sanctions and military threats against Iran, as well as increased support for its regional rivals.

D. Syria

Propaganda narratives about Syria had a collective effect of shaping public perception and opinion about the conflict in Syria. They often portrayed the Syrian government as the sole perpetrator of violence and atrocities, while portraying opposition groups as innocent victims. Allegations of chemical weapons use, support for terrorism, human rights abuses, and foreign influence have all been used in a propaganda campaign against Syria. These narratives have been promoted by Western governments, media outlets, and non-governmental organisations, with the aim of justifying various actions against the Syrian government.

Key high level narratives assert that:

• Syria engages in barbaric and inhumane acts against its own people
• Syria is a destabilising force in the region and is responsible for various terrorist attacks
• Syria is a pawn of Russia and Iran
• Syria is a failed state that is unable to provide for the basic needs of its people.

The key propaganda narratives employed by the USA and the West against Syria include:

Chemical Weapons Use: This narrative suggests that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its own citizens, including in the 2013 Ghouta attack and the 2017 Khan Sheikhoun attack. The Western media often portrays Syria as a state that engages in barbaric and inhumane acts against its own people.

The propaganda narrative that suggests Syria has used chemical weapons dates back to the early years of the Syrian civil war, which began in 2011. The first allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government were made in 2012, and since then, the narrative has been repeated and expanded upon by various western governments, media outlets, and non-governmental organisations. The most widely reported incident was the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack, in which hundreds of people were killed. The United States and other western countries accused the Syrian government of being responsible for the attack, and called for military action against Syria. However, the Syrian government denied responsibility and claimed that it was a false flag operation carried out by rebel groups. The United Nations subsequently conducted an investigation, which found that chemical weapons had been used but did not assign blame for the attack. Despite this, the narrative that Syria has used chemical weapons has continued to be used to justify various actions against the Syrian government.

The propaganda narrative that suggests Syria has used chemical weapons has been used to justify various actions against the Syrian government. In 2017, the United States launched a missile strike on a Syrian airbase in response to a chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, which killed dozens of people. The United States and its allies accused the Syrian government of being responsible for the attack, but the Syrian government denied the allegations. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) subsequently conducted an investigation and found that the nerve agent Sarin had been used in the attack, but did not assign blame for the attack. In 2018, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom launched another missile strike against Syrian government targets in response to another alleged chemical attack in Douma. The Syrian government once again denied the allegations and Russia claimed that the attack had been staged by rebel groups. The OPCW conducted an investigation and found that chlorine had been used in the attack, but did not assign blame for the attack. Despite the lack of definitive evidence, the narrative that Syria has used chemical weapons has continued to be used to justify various actions against the Syrian government. See also my article The OPCW’s Fall – Just Another Suborned and Discredited International Body.

Notably, the NATO and Atlantic Council associated investigative media organisation, Bellingcat, has been involved in several investigations related to the Syrian chemical weapons narrative (see also Bellingcat‘s involvement in shaping the Russian poisoning event regarding the Skripals above). In 2018, Bellingcat published a report on the April 2018 Douma chemical attack, which alleged that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack. Bellingcat’s investigation was conducted in collaboration with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab and the Syrian Archive, and relied heavily on open-source information such as videos and social media posts. The report was used to support the United States’ decision to launch the 2018 airstrikes against Syria. However, the report and the conclusions drawn from it have been disputed by other analysts and experts, and there are ongoing debates about the reliability and credibility of open-source investigations in complex conflict situations.

Support for Terrorism: This narrative suggests that the Syrian government provides support to terrorist groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas. The Western media often depicts Syria as a destabilizing force in the region, and blames the country for various terrorist attacks.

One of the main propaganda narratives against Syria is that the country supports terrorism. The Syrian government is accused of providing material support to various terrorist groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas, which stand accused of being involved in numerous acts of violence against Israel, as well as attacks on civilians in other countries. Critics of the Syrian government point to evidence such as the arrest of individuals carrying Syrian passports who were involved in terrorist attacks in Europe, as well as statements from former Syrian officials who have defected and provided information about the government’s support for terrorism. However, supporters of the Syrian government argue that it is engaged in a legitimate fight against terrorism, and that groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are freedom fighters rather than terrorists.

The accusations of Syrian support for terrorism have been used to justify a variety of actions against the Syrian government, including economic sanctions and military intervention. Western countries have frequently accused Syria of using its territory as a safe haven for terrorists, and have argued that the only way to combat terrorism is to remove the Assad government from power. However, critics argue that these accusations are largely unfounded, and that the real reason for Western hostility towards Syria is its alliance with Iran and its opposition to Western-backed regimes in the Middle East.

Human Rights Abuses: This narrative suggests that the Syrian government engages in widespread human rights abuses against its own citizens, including the repression of political dissidents, journalists, and minorities. The Western media often depicts Syria as a repressive regime that suppresses freedom of expression and political opposition.

A key narrative used against the Syrian government is the accusation of widespread human rights abuses against its own citizens. Numerous reports from international human rights organisations (such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) have asserted cases of torture, arbitrary detention, and extrajudicial killings carried out by Syrian security forces. These abuses are often said to be in response to protests and other forms of dissent against the government. In addition, the Syrian government has been accused of targeting civilians in its military operations, including the use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons.

One of the most notorious examples cited by Western entities of human rights abuses by the Syrian government was the 2011 crackdown on protesters that is said to have sparked the ongoing Syrian civil war. These human rights groups contend that tens of thousands of people were arrested and tortured during this period, and many were killed or “disappeared.” The government has also been accused of using rape as a tool of war, targeting medical personnel and facilities, and using starvation as a weapon of war. These human rights abuses are said to have contributed to the massive refugee crisis in the region, as Syrians purportedly flee the violence and persecution at home.

Russian and Iranian Influence: This narrative suggests that Syria is under the influence of Russia and Iran, and that these countries are using Syria as a pawn in their larger geopolitical struggles with the West. The Western media often depicts Syria as a battleground in the larger proxy conflict between Russia and the West.

The propaganda narrative that the country is under the influence of Russia and Iran is often used to suggest that Syria is not acting in its own interests but is instead a puppet of these two nations. This narrative is then used to justify the US and Western intervention in Syria by portraying Russia and Iran as hostile actors that are seeking to expand their influence in the Middle East. Promoted by US and Western media outlets and politicians, this narrative has been used to justify sanctions and military action against Syria.

Refugee Crisis: This narrative suggests that the Syrian government is responsible for the refugee crisis in the region, and that the country’s leaders have failed to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. The Western media often portrays Syria as a failed state that is unable to provide for the basic needs of its people.

The narrative that the Syrian government is responsible for the refugee crisis in the region has been widely promoted by Western governments and media outlets. These entities assert that the Syrian government’s brutal crackdown on opposition groups—including the use of chemical weapons and other atrocities—has created a humanitarian crisis that has forced millions of Syrians to flee their homes.

The refugee crisis narrative also suggests that the Syrian government’s failure to address the root causes of the conflict, such as economic inequality and political repression, has contributed to the displacement of millions of people. While oversimplifying the complex factors contributing to the refugee crisis—including the actions of other governments hostile to the Syrian government, such as those of the United States, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar—this narrative serves to deflect attention from the role that Western governments and institutions have played in perpetuating the conflict and exacerbating the humanitarian crisis.

Evil Leader: The propaganda narrative of portraying Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as an “evil leader” has been widely used by Western media and governments. The allegations against Assad include his responsibility for the use of chemical weapons against civilians during the Syrian civil war, the bombing of hospitals and schools, and the suppression of political dissidents. These claims have been supported by reports from human rights organisations and testimony from Syrian refugees, but have also been contested by the Syrian government and its allies, who argue that Western countries are supporting terrorist groups and that the Syrian army is fighting against them.

The portrayal of Assad as an evil leader has been used to justify Western military intervention and economic sanctions against Syria. It has also been used to create a binary narrative of good vs. evil, with the West as the good and Assad as the evil. However, this narrative has been criticised for oversimplifying the complexities of the Syrian conflict and ignoring the role of external actors in fueling the war.

E. Libya

A series of propaganda narratives about Libya were employed to shape public opinion and garner support for the military intervention in the country by the United States and its allies in 2011. By portraying Muammar Gaddafi and his government as brutal, oppressive, and a threat to international security, these narratives aimed to justify the intervention as a humanitarian mission to protect the Libyan people from their tyrannical leader. The narratives also helped to build a sense of moral obligation among the Western public, suggesting that the intervention was necessary to bring about democracy and freedom in Libya. Additionally, the narrative that Libya was supporting terrorist groups and responsible for the Lockerbie bombing helped to create a sense of urgency and justify the use of military force to remove Gaddafi from power.

Key high level narratives asserted that:

• Libya was ruled by a brutal dictator who ruled with an iron fist
• Libya was a state sponsor of terrorism and a dangerous destabilising force in the region
• Libya was a rogue state willing to commit acts of terrorism on foreign soil
• Libya needed Western intervention to liberate it from an oppressive regime and prevent a humanitarian crisis.

The key propaganda narratives employed by the USA and the West against Libya included:

Human Rights Abuses: This narrative suggested that the Libyan government under Muammar Gaddafi was responsible for a range of human rights abuses, including torture, killings, and the suppression of political dissent. The Western media often depicted Gaddafi as a brutal dictator who ruled Libya with an iron fist and had little regard for the well-being of his people.

The propaganda narrative that suggests that the Libyan government under Muammar Gaddafi was responsible for a range of human rights abuses is one that has been widely promoted by the US and western governments. This narrative portrays Gaddafi as a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people and used violence to maintain his grip on power. Some of the specific human rights abuses that have been attributed to the Gaddafi regime include torture, extrajudicial killings and the suppression of free speech and political opposition. Western governments have used this narrative to justify their military intervention in Libya in 2011, claiming that they were protecting the Libyan people from Gaddafi’s atrocities.

However, some experts have challenged this narrative, pointing out that many of the allegations of human rights abuses have been exaggerated or fabricated. For example, it has been suggested that some of the videos and images that were circulated in the western media as evidence of Gaddafi’s crimes were actually from other conflicts or were staged.

Support for Terrorism: This narrative suggested that the Libyan government was providing support for terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, and that Gaddafi was a threat to international security. The Western media often depicted Libya as a state sponsor of terrorism, and Gaddafi as a dangerous leader who was destabilising the region.

The narrative that the Libyan government was providing support for terrorist groups was a key part of the propaganda campaign waged by the United States and its allies against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in the lead up to the 2011 military intervention. The main allegation was that Libya was providing support to a range of terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. This narrative was based on a number of factors, including Gaddafi’s long-standing support for various radical groups around the world, as well as his government’s alleged links to various terrorist attacks, such as the 1986 bombing of a Berlin discotheque that killed two American soldiers.

Supporters of this narrative also pointed to the fact that Libya had a history of providing support to groups that were involved in violent or terrorist activities. For example, the country had long been a supporter of the Palestinian cause, and had provided funding and arms to groups like Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Additionally, Libya had provided support to a range of African liberation movements, many of which were involved in violent struggle against colonial powers or repressive regimes. However, critics of this narrative pointed out that many of the allegations of Libyan support for terrorism were either unproven or based on flimsy evidence, and that the US and its allies had a vested interest in portraying Libya as a supporter of terrorism in order to justify the military intervention.

Despite the lack of concrete evidence, the narrative that Libya was providing support for terrorist groups was widely circulated in the media and used to justify the military intervention. This narrative was further reinforced by the fact that Gaddafi’s regime had been accused of a range of other human rights abuses, including the use of torture, extrajudicial killings, and the repression of political dissidents. Taken together, these various allegations created a powerful narrative that portrayed Libya as a rogue state that posed a significant threat to regional and global security.

Responsibility for Lockerbie Bombing: This narrative suggested that the Libyan government was responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people. The Western media often depicted Libya as a rogue state that was willing to commit acts of terrorism on foreign soil.

The propaganda narrative that the Libyan government was responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, has been propagated by several Western countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. In the aftermath of the bombing, the U.S. and UK governments accused Libya of sponsoring the attack and demanded that the Libyan government hand over two suspects for trial. Libya denied any involvement in the attack but agreed to hand over the suspects in 1999, and they were subsequently tried and convicted in a Scottish court in 2001. Despite the conviction, there have been persistent claims that the Libyan government was not involved in the attack and that the evidence against it was weak or manipulated. Some have pointed to other possible culprits, including Iran, Syria, and terrorist groups based in the Middle East.

The narrative that the Libyan government was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing was used as a justification for economic sanctions against Libya and military action against the country. In 1992, the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Libya in response to the country’s alleged involvement in the bombing. The sanctions were lifted in 2003 after Libya agreed to pay compensation to the victims’ families and renounce its support for terrorism. In 2011, the narrative was again used as a justification for the military intervention in Libya by the United States and its allies, which led to the overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Necessity of Regime Change: This narrative suggested that the United States and its allies had a moral obligation to remove Gaddafi from power and bring about regime change in Libya, to establish democracy and bring freedom to the Libyan people. The Western media often depicted Libya as a country in need of liberation from an oppressive regime.

A key propaganda narrative employed by the United States and its allies in their intervention in Libya was the idea that they had a moral obligation to remove Gaddafi from power and bring about regime change. This narrative was built on the premise that Gaddafi’s government was illegitimate and repressive, and that the Libyan people deserved the chance to govern themselves in a democratic and open society. The narrative was also linked to the broader “War on Terror”, with Gaddafi being portrayed as a supporter of terrorism who posed a threat to the West and the stability of the Middle East. This narrative was used to justify the use of military force against the Libyan government, with the aim of removing Gaddafi from power and creating the conditions for a new, democratic Libya.

Another propaganda narrative used to support the intervention in Libya was the idea that the Libyan people were calling for help from the international community to protect them from their own government. This narrative was built on images of protests and violence in the streets, with reports of Gaddafi’s forces attacking civilians and using violence to suppress dissent. This narrative was designed to appeal to Western notions of human rights and democracy, and to create a sense of urgency around the need to act to protect the Libyan people from their own government. The narrative was also linked to the idea of a Responsibility to Protect, which argues that the international community has a duty to intervene to protect civilians from gross human rights violations. This narrative was used to build support for the intervention in Libya, particularly among liberal and humanitarian-minded individuals and groups.

Protection of Civilians: This narrative suggested that the United States and its allies were launching a military intervention in Libya to protect Libyan civilians from government violence, including air strikes and artillery fire. The Western media often depicted the intervention as a humanitarian mission, aimed at preventing a humanitarian crisis in Libya.

The propaganda narrative used by the United States and its allies during the 2011 military intervention in Libya suggested that the main reason for the intervention was to protect Libyan civilians from government violence. According to this narrative, the Libyan government under Muammar Gaddafi was committing widespread human rights abuses, including the use of air strikes and artillery fire against its own citizens. The United States and its allies argued that it was their moral obligation to intervene and protect the Libyan people from this violence.

However, this propaganda narrative has been heavily criticised for being misleading and inaccurate. Many analysts have argued that the main reason for the intervention was to further Western geopolitical interests, rather than to protect Libyan civilians. For example, some have pointed out that Libya is a major oil-producing country, and that Western powers may have been motivated by a desire to secure access to Libyan oil reserves. Others have suggested that the intervention was part of a broader effort to weaken or topple regimes in the Middle East that were seen as being hostile to Western interests.

Evil Leader: The propaganda narrative of an evil leader was used against Libya prior to the US invasions in 2011. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was depicted as a ruthless dictator who oppressed his people and committed heinous crimes against humanity.

Gaddafi was accused of sponsoring terrorism and funding extremist groups, including al-Qaeda, and of having a vast stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. These allegations were used to justify the US-led intervention in Libya, which resulted in Gaddafi’s overthrow and ultimately contributed to the destabilization of the country. The narrative of an evil leader was also used to justify the imposition of economic sanctions against Libya, which further damaged the country’s economy and infrastructure.

In addition to these allegations, the propaganda narrative of an evil leader also painted Gaddafi as a sexual deviant and a madman. He was accused of rape and sexual assault, and of having a network of female bodyguards who were required to be virgins and were allegedly abused by Gaddafi himself. These allegations were used to further demonise Gaddafi and to portray him as a morally bankrupt individual who was unfit to lead a country. The narrative of an evil leader was a key part of the propaganda campaign against Libya, which ultimately resulted in the country’s destabilisation and the suffering of its people.

F. Iraq

Propaganda narratives used by the USA and the West against Iraq included the suggestion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, had links to Al-Qaeda, was a brutal and oppressive regime, and that the United States and its allies had a moral obligation to remove Saddam Hussein from power and establish democracy. These narratives were promoted by political leaders, government officials, and media outlets to generate public support for the war. However, after the invasion, it was discovered that the claims were false or based on inaccurate information, leading to widespread criticism of the propaganda campaign and of the decision to go to war.

Key high level narratives asserted that:

• Iraq was a rogue state that was willing to use these weapons against its enemies
• Iraq was a sponsor of international terrorism and a danger to the Western world
• Iraq was a repressive regime that suppressed freedom of expression and political opposition
• Iraq was a country in need of liberation from an oppressive regime
• Iraq was a key player in the global oil industry, and the invasion as a means of securing access to its resources
• Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people and posed a significant threat to global security.

The key propaganda narratives employed by the USA and the West against Iraq included:

Weapons of Mass Destruction: This narrative suggested that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and that Saddam Hussein’s regime posed an imminent threat to international security. The Western media often depicted Iraq as a rogue state that was willing to use these weapons against its enemies.

The propaganda narrative that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was one of the primary justifications for the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. The narrative was based on the claim that the Iraqi government had acquired and maintained large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, as well as an active nuclear weapons program, in violation of United Nations resolutions. This claim was used to argue that Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to the security of the United States and its allies. The narrative was widely promoted by political leaders, government officials, and media outlets, and played a significant role in generating public support for the war. However, after the invasion, it was discovered that the claims of Iraq’s possession of WMDs were false, and that the intelligence used to support the claims had been manipulated and exaggerated. This led to widespread criticism of the propaganda campaign and of the decision to go to war.

The propaganda narrative that Iraq possessed WMDs was fuelled by a number of factors. One of the key drivers was the Bush administration’s desire to justify the invasion of Iraq in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. The administration argued that Iraq was part of a broader “axis of evil” that posed a grave threat to US national security, and that Saddam Hussein’s regime had links to terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. The narrative was also supported by a range of intelligence reports and assessments, some of which were later found to be unreliable. In addition, the narrative was promoted by a range of media outlets and public figures, who uncritically repeated the claims of the Bush administration and helped to generate public support for the war. Despite the later revelation that the claims were false, the propaganda campaign had already achieved its goal, and the invasion of Iraq had taken place.

Links to Al-Qaeda: This narrative suggested that Iraq had links to the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and that the country’s leaders were providing support to terrorist groups. The Western media often depicted Iraq as a sponsor of international terrorism and a danger to the Western world.

During the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, one of the main propaganda narratives used to justify the war was the suggestion that Iraq had links to the terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda and that the country’s leaders were providing support to terrorist groups. While there was little concrete evidence to support these claims, the Bush administration and its allies in the media and government repeated them relentlessly, leading to widespread public belief in the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. One of the key pieces of evidence used to support this narrative was the existence of training camps in Iraq that were allegedly used to train terrorists. However, there was little evidence to support this claim, and many experts argued that such camps would have been unlikely to exist in a country like Iraq, which was heavily controlled by the government.

Another aspect of the narrative linking Iraq to terrorism was the suggestion that Saddam Hussein had provided support to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Again, there was little concrete evidence to support these claims, and many experts argued that Saddam’s regime was actually hostile to Al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups. However, the Bush administration and its allies in the media and government continued to promote the narrative of Iraqi links to terrorism, leading to public support for the invasion of Iraq. In the end, of course, no evidence was found to support the claims of Iraqi links to terrorism, and the invasion of Iraq was widely criticized as a misguided and unnecessary war.

Brutality and Oppression: This narrative suggested that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein was brutal and oppressive, with human rights abuses including torture, executions, and mass killings of political opponents. The Western media often depicted Iraq as a repressive regime that suppressed freedom of expression and political opposition.

The propaganda narrative regarding Saddam Hussein’s regime’s human rights abuses was not only promoted by Western governments and media but also by Iraqi exiles and opposition groups. These groups played a significant role in advocating for the removal of the regime and supported the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also documented the regime’s abuses and called for international action to hold the regime accountable for its actions. However, the use of this propaganda narrative as a justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq remains controversial, with many experts and observers arguing that the invasion was not necessary to address the human rights abuses and that the justifications used to support the war were based on inaccurate information and propaganda.

Regime Change: This narrative suggested that the United States and its allies had a moral obligation to bring about regime change in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power, in order to establish democracy and bring freedom to the Iraqi people. The Western media often depicted Iraq as a country in need of liberation from an oppressive regime.

The propaganda narrative that the United States and its allies had a moral obligation to bring about regime change in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power was based on the idea that the Iraqi people were suffering under a brutal and oppressive regime. The narrative suggested that Saddam Hussein was a dictator who had no respect for human rights, and that he was responsible for the suffering of millions of Iraqis. It was argued that the only way to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and establish a new government.

This narrative was widely promoted by the United States government and its allies, who used it to justify their invasion of Iraq in 2003. The narrative was based on a combination of facts, half-truths, and exaggerations, and was designed to appeal to the emotions of people in the West who were concerned about human rights and democracy. However, critics of the narrative argued that it was a form of propaganda, and that it was being used to justify an unjust war that would lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the destruction of a country.

The propaganda narrative that the United States and its allies had a moral obligation to bring about regime change in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power was also based on the idea that Iraq was a threat to global security. The narrative suggested that Saddam Hussein was a supporter of terrorism, and that he had links to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It was argued that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, and that he posed a serious threat to the United States and its allies. The narrative was used to justify the invasion of Iraq, and was widely accepted by the public in the United States and other Western countries. However, critics of the narrative argued that it was based on false information, and that it was being used to promote the interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East.

Oil Resources: This narrative suggested that the United States and its allies were motivated by a desire to control Iraq’s oil resources, and that the invasion was driven by economic interests rather than concerns for national security or humanitarian reasons. The Western media often depicted Iraq as a key player in the global oil industry, and the invasion as a means of securing access to its resources.

The propaganda narrative suggesting that the United States needed to control Iraq’s oil resources for economic and security reasons was a prominent justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Proponents of this narrative argued that Iraq had the world’s second-largest proven oil reserves and that control over these resources was essential for American energy security. They also claimed that Saddam Hussein’s government was not a reliable partner in the global oil market, and that the regime had threatened to use oil as a weapon against the United States and its allies. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was presented as a way to ensure that the world’s oil supplies remained stable and to prevent a potential energy crisis that could harm the US economy.

Supporters of the invasion argued that controlling Iraq’s oil resources was necessary to prevent other nations, particularly China and Russia, from gaining access to this valuable resource. They suggested that if Iraq’s oil were to fall into the hands of these nations, it could threaten US economic and security interests by giving them greater control over global energy supplies. Some also argued that Saddam Hussein was using Iraq’s oil resources to fund terrorist groups and other destabilising activities, and that controlling these resources was therefore necessary to combat terrorism and promote stability in the Middle East.

Evil Leader: The propaganda narrative of Iraq under Saddam Hussein as an “evil leader” was a crucial part of the justification for the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. The US government and its allies portrayed Saddam as a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people and posed a significant threat to global security.

Specific allegations included the use of chemical weapons against civilians and ethnic minorities, the suppression of political dissent, and the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The US government claimed that Iraq had an active WMD program, which presented an imminent threat to the world, despite the lack of conclusive evidence. The evil leader narrative was used to garner public support for the invasion and to justify the military intervention as a humanitarian effort to liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny.

However, the validity of these allegations has been heavily disputed, and the invasion of Iraq has been widely criticised as a catastrophic foreign policy blunder. The WMDs were never found, and many of the claims made about Saddam’s regime were exaggerated or based on faulty intelligence. The invasion resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destabilised the region, leading to ongoing conflict and instability. The “evil leader” propaganda narrative played a critical role in shaping public perception of Iraq and justifying the invasion, despite the lack of concrete evidence to support many of the claims made against Saddam.

G. Afghanistan

Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the USA and the West employed several propaganda narratives to justify the military intervention. These narratives were used to rally public support for military intervention and to justify the use of force against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

The key propaganda narratives employed by the USA and the West against Afghanistan included:

Haven for Terrorists: One of the most prominent propaganda narratives used against Afghanistan prior to the US invasion was the claim that the country was a safe haven for terrorists, particularly Al-Qaeda. The USA and the West argued that the Taliban government, which ruled Afghanistan at the time, was providing support and shelter to terrorist groups that posed a threat to international security.

The propaganda narrative that Afghanistan was a safe haven for terrorists was a key justification for the United States and its allies to invade Afghanistan in 2001. The narrative was largely based on the fact that Al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the September 11 attacks, had been operating from Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban government. The United States argued that the Taliban had provided safe haven for Al-Qaeda and had allowed the group to train and plan attacks from within Afghanistan. This propaganda narrative was used to rally public support for the war in Afghanistan and to justify the use of military force against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The narrative was reinforced by images and stories of the 9/11 attacks, which had a powerful emotional impact on people around the world.

The propaganda narrative was also used to demonise the Taliban as a brutal and oppressive regime that was willing to provide sanctuary to terrorists. The narrative painted the Taliban as a group that posed a direct threat to the security of the United States and its allies, and argued that the only way to deal with this threat was to remove the Taliban from power and destroy Al-Qaeda’s operations in Afghanistan. The narrative was used to justify a massive military campaign, which involved the deployment of tens of thousands of troops and the use of air strikes and ground assaults to root out Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters from their strongholds. The narrative also drew on the idea of the “war on terror”, which suggested that the United States was engaged in a global struggle against terrorism and that the use of force was necessary to protect the country and its citizens.

Human Rights Abuses: Another propaganda narrative employed by the USA and the West was the claim that the Taliban government was responsible for serious human rights abuses, particularly against women and minorities. The Taliban’s strict interpretation of Islamic law led to a repressive regime that limited the freedoms and rights of its citizens, particularly women and girls.

The USA and its allies have long maintained that the Taliban government was responsible for severe human rights abuses, particularly against women and minorities. The Taliban’s treatment of women, in particular, has been widely condemned, with many arguing that it constitutes a form of gender-based violence. Under the Taliban regime, women were required to wear burqas and were not allowed to work outside the home or attend school beyond the age of eight. Women who disobeyed these rules were punished severely, with beatings and public executions being common. The Taliban also enforced strict dress codes for men, and minorities such as Hazaras were subjected to discrimination and violence. These human rights abuses were used as a justification for military intervention in Afghanistan, with the USA and its allies arguing that the Taliban government posed a threat not just to the Afghan people, but to the wider world.

With many Western human rights organisations having documented the Taliban’s abuses, including the execution of women accused of adultery and the use of child soldiers, Human Rights Watch called for accountability for these abuses and for the international community to ensure that those responsible be held accountable. The Taliban’s treatment of women was a particular focus of criticism, with many arguing that it constituted a form of gender-based violence.

Support for Drug Trade: The USA and the West also claimed that the Taliban government was heavily involved in the drug trade, particularly the production and export of opium. The Taliban’s control over much of the country’s poppy fields and the opium trade was seen as a major source of funding for the group, and a threat to international efforts to combat drug trafficking.

One of the key propaganda narratives that was employed in the lead-up to the US invasion of Afghanistan was the claim that the Taliban government was heavily involved in the drug trade. According to this narrative, the Taliban was not only allowing opium production to flourish, but was actively involved in exporting and profiting from the drug trade. This claim was used to justify the US’s intervention in Afghanistan, as it was argued that by removing the Taliban from power, the US would be able to crack down on drug production and trafficking in the region, thereby improving global security and disrupting terrorist financing networks.

While some US propaganda narratives did acknowledge the Taliban’s previous efforts to eradicate opium production in Afghanistan, these narratives often portrayed this as an exception to the rule and as a ploy by the Taliban to gain international legitimacy rather than a genuine effort to combat the drug trade. In other cases, the focus was shifted to the Taliban’s alleged ties to drug trafficking networks, rather than its previous anti-drug efforts. Propaganda messages often emphasised the idea that the Taliban had become complicit in the drug trade and was using the profits to fund terrorism and other illicit activities. This allowed the US and its allies to justify their efforts to eradicate the Taliban and the drug trade in Afghanistan as part of their broader counter-terrorism strategy. The claim that the Taliban was heavily involved in the drug trade was an effective propaganda tool for the US and its allies, as it helped to build public support for the war effort and provided a justification for the invasion.

Destabilising the Region: The USA and the West argued that the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan was destabilising the region, particularly in Pakistan. The Taliban’s support for militant groups and its control over large parts of Afghanistan were seen as contributing to instability and violence in the wider region.

One of the key propaganda narratives employed by the United States prior to the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was the claim that the Taliban’s rule was destabilising the region, particularly in neighbouring Pakistan. The US and its allies accused the Taliban of providing support to militant groups, including Al-Qaeda, who were involved in terrorist activities in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban’s rule was seen as a threat to regional stability and the US argued that their intervention was necessary to restore order and prevent further violence and instability.

The US and its allies argued that the Taliban’s support for militant groups, including Al-Qaeda, was a major cause of instability in the region. The US government accused the Taliban of providing safe haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, allowing them to train and plan attacks against US and allied forces. The Taliban’s support for these groups was seen as a direct threat to US national security interests, and the US argued that their intervention in Afghanistan was necessary to root out these groups and prevent them from launching further attacks. The US also argued that the Taliban’s oppressive rule, particularly their treatment of women and minorities, was contributing to instability in the region and that their intervention was necessary to bring about a more stable and democratic government in Afghanistan.

Failure to Cooperate with International Community: The USA and the West also claimed that the Taliban government was refusing to cooperate with the international community, particularly in relation to its support for terrorist groups. The Taliban’s refusal to hand over Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, despite repeated requests from the international community, was seen as evidence of its lack of willingness to work with other nations.

Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Taliban government was accused of refusing to cooperate with the international community, particularly in relation to its support for terrorist groups. The US claimed that the Taliban provided a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden, who they said had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Despite calls from the US and other countries for the Taliban to turn over bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders, the Taliban refused to cooperate, leading to the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. The US government argued that the Taliban’s refusal to cooperate with the international community was evidence of its support for terrorism, and that removing the Taliban from power was necessary to prevent further terrorist attacks on the US and its allies.

The Taliban’s refusal to cooperate with the international community was also seen as evidence of its broader isolationist and extremist ideology. The Taliban’s strict interpretation of Islam led to the imposition of a harsh version of Sharia law, which included punishments such as amputations and executions. The Taliban’s human rights abuses, particularly against women and minorities, also contributed to its isolation from the international community. The US government argued that removing the Taliban from power was necessary to promote human rights and democracy in Afghanistan, and to prevent the spread of extremist ideology to other countries in the region. The US-led invasion of Afghanistan was therefore framed as a necessary action to protect the security and values of the international community, and to prevent the spread of extremism and terrorism.

Evil Leader: Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the propaganda narrative presented the Taliban regime and its leader, Mullah Omar, as an evil and oppressive force. They were portrayed as supporters of terrorism and their harsh treatment of women and religious minorities was highlighted.

The US government accused the Taliban of harbouring Al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks, which further solidified the evil image. The US-led coalition claimed to be liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban and bringing freedom and democracy to the country.

Specific allegations against Mullah Omar included the execution of women for minor offenses, such as being seen in public without a male relative. He was also accused of harbouring Osama bin Laden and other members of Al-Qaeda, providing them with safe haven and support to carry out terrorist attacks against the West. The US government and its allies claimed that removing Omar from power and eliminating the Taliban regime was necessary to disrupt terrorist networks and prevent future attacks on the West. This propaganda narrative was used to build support for the invasion of Afghanistan, which began in October 2001.

H. North Korea

The key propaganda narratives used against North Korea aim to depict the country as a rogue state in order to justify US and Western military and economic pressure against the country and its people.

Key high level narratives assert that:

• North Korea is responsible for human rights abuses
• North Korea is a propaganda state
• North Korea is a pariah state isolated from the rest of the world
• North Korea is an aggressive state that threatens its neighbours and the world
• North Korea’s leader is as a brutal dictator who starves his people, executes political dissidents, and threatens the world with nuclear weapons.

The key propaganda narratives employed by the USA and western allies against North Korea are:

Rogue State: This narrative paints North Korea as a rogue state that poses a threat to regional and global stability. The narrative emphasises North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile technology and its alleged disregard for international law and norms.

The propaganda narrative that North Korea is a rogue state has been heavily promoted by the US government and its allies. This narrative presents North Korea as a dangerous and unpredictable actor on the world stage, posing a threat to regional and global security. The term “rogue state” implies that North Korea operates outside the norms of the international community and is not bound by the rules that govern civilised nations. This narrative is used to justify aggressive policies towards North Korea, including sanctions, military threats, and regime change.

One of the key allegations used to support the rogue state narrative is North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. The US and its allies claim that North Korea poses a direct threat to their security and the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. They argue that North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is destabilising, provocative, and violates international norms. The US and its allies have used this narrative to justify the imposition of harsh sanctions on North Korea and to justify military threats, such as the deployment of US warships and aircraft to the Korean Peninsula. The rogue state narrative has also been used to justify the US and its allies’ support for regime change in North Korea, with the ultimate goal of removing the Kim regime from power.

Human Rights Abuses: This narrative portrays North Korea as a brutal dictatorship that routinely violates the human rights of its citizens. The narrative highlights North Korea’s use of forced labour, political imprisonment, and state-sponsored violence.

The US propaganda narrative surrounding North Korea’s human rights abuses often focuses on the country’s political prison camps, where thousands of North Koreans are reportedly held for political crimes, real or perceived. Reports from defectors and human rights organisations describe horrific conditions in these camps, including torture, starvation, and forced labour. The US government and its allies have used these reports to paint North Korea as a brutal regime that violates the basic human rights of its citizens. They have also used this narrative to justify economic sanctions against North Korea, arguing that it is necessary to pressure the regime to improve its human rights record.

The US propaganda narrative also highlights the North Korean government’s restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, as well as its suppression of religious and cultural activities. North Koreans are not allowed to criticise the government or the ruling Kim family, and those who do risk severe punishment. The government controls all media outlets, and citizens do not have access to the internet or international news sources. The US and its allies have used this narrative to argue that North Korea is a repressive regime that denies its citizens basic human rights and freedoms. This narrative has also been used to garner international support for economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation of North Korea.

Propaganda State: This narrative suggests that the North Korean government uses propaganda to brainwash its citizens and maintain its grip on power. The narrative emphasizes North Korea’s tightly controlled media and education system, which promote a cult of personality around the country’s leaders.

The US propaganda narrative against North Korea often portrays the country as a propaganda state, where the government controls all information and indoctrinates its citizens with constant propaganda. The regime is often depicted as using propaganda to glorify its leaders and portray the country as a utopia, while demonising the West and its allies. The US and its allies often highlight examples of propaganda, such as the ubiquitous images of former leaders Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il and the forced participation in mass rallies and events. These claims are often backed up by defectors, who are presented as credible sources despite their own biases and motivations. While it is true that North Korea heavily controls the media and censors information, the US propaganda narrative often exaggerates and oversimplifies the situation to create a negative image of the country.

The portrayal of North Korea as a propaganda state is used to further the US propaganda narrative that the country is a threat to the international community, particularly the US and its allies. The claim is often used to justify harsh economic sanctions, military threats, and other measures aimed at isolating North Korea. The propaganda narrative is also used to dismiss the country’s achievements and its legitimacy as a sovereign state. This is exemplified by the US and its allies’ dismissal of North Korea’s claims of successful missile tests and nuclear capabilities as mere propaganda, despite evidence to the contrary. The narrative also serves to justify the US military presence in the region, including the deployment of nuclear weapons, as a necessary deterrent against the North Korean regime’s supposed propaganda-fuelled aggression.

Isolation: This narrative suggests that North Korea is a pariah state that is isolated from the rest of the world. The narrative highlights North Korea’s limited economic engagement with other countries and its reliance on China for trade and diplomatic support.

The US propaganda narrative regarding North Korea as a pariah state emphasises the country’s alleged isolation from the international community. North Korea is portrayed as a nation cut off from the rest of the world due to its policies and actions. The country is portrayed as a threat to global peace and stability, with its nuclear weapons program and aggressive rhetoric towards the US and its allies. The narrative often highlights North Korea’s lack of diplomatic relations with many countries, including the US, as evidence of its isolation. This portrayal of North Korea as an isolated and dangerous state serves to reinforce the US government’s policy of maintaining a hard-line stance against the country, including economic sanctions and military posturing.

However, it is worth noting that North Korea’s isolation has not always been self-imposed. Following the Korean War, the US and its allies imposed a series of economic sanctions on North Korea that severely limited the country’s ability to engage with the global economy. Furthermore, the US has pursued a policy of containment towards North Korea, including stationing military assets in South Korea and conducting joint military exercises in the region. The fact that these actions have contributed to North Korea’s sense of isolation and its perception of the US as a hostile foreign power is not recognised in the narrative.

Aggressor: This narrative portrays North Korea as an aggressive state that threatens its neighbours and the world. The narrative highlights North Korea’s provocative actions, including missile tests and military exercises, and suggests that the country is constantly on the brink of war.

Through this narrative, the US and its allies portray North Korea as an aggressive state that poses a threat to regional and global security. They point to the country’s nuclear weapons program and ballistic missile capabilities as evidence of its aggressive intentions. The US has accused North Korea of pursuing nuclear weapons as part of a strategy to intimidate its neighbours and gain leverage in regional affairs. The US also accuses North Korea of exporting weapons and missile technology to other countries, including Iran and Syria, further fuelling regional instability. Meanwhile, the US frequently conducts military exercises with South Korea and Japan in the region, citing the need to deter North Korean aggression.

Evil Leader: The propaganda narrative of an evil leader has been a key device used by the USA and its western allies against North Korea. The North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, has been portrayed as a brutal dictator who starves his people, executes political dissidents, and threatens the world with nuclear weapons.

The media has highlighted the oppressive nature of North Korea’s political system and the lack of basic human rights for its citizens. The portrayal of Kim Jong-un as a madman has been used to justify economic sanctions and military threats against North Korea. The propaganda narrative of an evil leader has been effective in maintaining international pressure on North Korea and isolating it from the global community.

Specific allegations against Kim Jong-un include the execution of his own uncle, Jang Song-thaek, and the assassination of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, in Malaysia. These incidents have been portrayed as evidence of Kim Jong-un’s ruthless nature and willingness to eliminate anyone who challenges his authority. Reports of concentration camps and mass starvation have also been used to paint North Korea as a barbaric and backward state. The propaganda narrative of an evil leader has been reinforced by the media’s focus on North Korea’s missile and nuclear tests, which are portrayed as aggressive acts aimed at threatening the world. Overall, the portrayal of Kim Jong-un as an evil leader has been a powerful tool in demonizing North Korea and justifying US and Western intervention.

I. Cuba

Propaganda narratives used against Cuba aim to depict the country as a rogue state in order to justify US and Western military and economic pressure against the country and its people.

Key high level narratives assert that:

• Cuba is a threat to democracy, human rights, and economic stability
• Cuba’s government as oppressive and repressive
• Cuba’s economic policies are responsible for the country’s poverty
• Cuba’s government is a repressive dictatorship that suppresses the people’s freedom and civil liberties
• Cuban government has provided sanctuary and support for terrorists.

The key propaganda narratives employed by the USA and western allies against Cuba are:

Communist threat: This narrative portrays Cuba as a communist threat to the Western Hemisphere and the rest of the world. It emphasises the alleged dangers of a communist regime that poses a threat to democracy, human rights, and economic stability.

This narrative is used to justify the economic embargo imposed on Cuba since 1960 and demonise the country’s leadership. The propaganda portrays Cuba as a communist regime that spreads anti-democratic ideologies and poses a security threat to the Western world. It is often argued that Cuba’s communist regime has influenced other countries in the region, and it is imperative to isolate it to prevent the spread of its ideology. The narrative portrays Cuba as a country that has consistently supported anti-Western movements, particularly in Latin America and Africa, and its policies have threatened the interests of Western countries.

The narrative of Cuba as a communist threat to the Western Hemisphere has been used to create a sense of fear and insecurity among people, particularly in the USA, about the spread of communism. It has been used to justify military interventions and covert operations against countries perceived to be supporting communist ideologies. The propaganda narrative depicts Cuba as a country that has consistently opposed US interests and values, particularly in the context of the Cold War. It is often used to justify the economic sanctions imposed on Cuba by the US and other Western countries, and portray it as a rogue state that does not adhere to international norms and values. The narrative also portrays the Cuban regime as repressive and authoritarian, and its policies as a threat to individual freedom and human rights.

Human rights abuses: This narrative emphasises Cuba’s alleged human rights abuses, including restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, as well as the alleged mistreatment of political prisoners and dissidents.

The US propaganda narrative against Cuba has long focused on human rights abuses in the country, with claims that the Cuban government violates the basic rights of its citizens. The US government and western allies have accused the Cuban government of restricting freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion. This narrative emphasises alleged abuses such as restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly, arbitrary detentions, and political repression.  

The US and western media often highlight stories of Cuban citizens who have been imprisoned or persecuted for speaking out against the government or for expressing opinions that differ from the official government stance. The US government and its allies argue that Cuba is a dictatorship that denies its citizens basic rights and freedoms, and that the Cuban government uses repressive measures to maintain its grip on power.  These allegations are used to portray the Cuban government as oppressive and repressive, and to undermine its legitimacy both domestically and internationally.

Economic embargo: This narrative focuses on the economic embargo that the United States has imposed on Cuba since 1960. It portrays Cuba as an economic failure due to its socialist policies and blames the Cuban government for the country’s poverty and lack of development.

The US propaganda narrative against Cuba also portrays the country as an economic failure due to its socialist policies, blaming the Cuban government for the country’s poverty and lack of development. The narrative claims that the Cuban people are suffering under the socialist regime and that the government is responsible for the country’s economic woes. The propaganda also suggests that the only way for Cuba to prosper is to adopt free-market policies and open it to Western investment and trade.

The purpose of this narrative is to discredit the Cuban government and socialism as a viable economic system. The narrative attempts to undermine the Cuban government’s legitimacy by suggesting that its economic policies have failed and that it is responsible for the country’s poverty. It also serves as a warning to other countries that may be considering socialism as an alternative economic system. By portraying Cuba as an economic failure, the narrative aims to dissuade other countries from adopting socialist policies and to maintain the dominance of Western-style capitalism.

Dictatorship: This narrative portrays the Cuban government as a repressive dictatorship that suppresses the Cuban people’s freedom and civil liberties. It also portrays Fidel Castro and his brother Raul as tyrants who have held power for too long.

The US propaganda narrative often portrays the Cuban government as a repressive dictatorship that suppresses political opposition and freedom of expression. This narrative is used to support the idea that the Cuban people need to be “liberated” from their government, and that the US should intervene in Cuban affairs to bring about democracy and human rights. The narrative relies on examples of political repression, such as the arrest and imprisonment of dissidents and human rights activists. The US government and media also highlight the limitations on internet access and the restrictions on media freedom in Cuba as evidence of the government’s repressive nature.

The narrative of Cuba as a repressive dictatorship is also tied to the history of US-Cuba relations, particularly the US embargo on Cuba. The US propaganda often suggests that the embargo is a tool to pressure the Cuban government to respect human rights and promote democracy. The narrative also focuses on the personalisation of power in Cuba, with Fidel and Raul Castro being portrayed as dictators who rule with an iron fist. The US propaganda often highlights the lack of democratic elections and the one-party system in Cuba as evidence of the Castro government’s authoritarianism. Overall, the portrayal of Cuba as a repressive dictatorship serves as a justification for US intervention in Cuban affairs and the need to protect human rights and promote democracy.

Support for terrorism: This narrative alleges that Cuba has supported terrorism and revolutionary movements in Latin America and around the world. It emphasises Cuba’s alleged links to left-wing guerrilla groups and states that the Cuban government has provided sanctuary and support for terrorists.

The US propaganda narrative against Cuba often emphasises the country’s alleged support for terrorism and revolutionary movements in Latin America and beyond. The US government has accused Cuba of providing aid and sanctuary to groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Basque separatist group ETA. Additionally, Cuba has been accused of supporting governments and movements that are at odds with the United States, including Venezuela and Iran. The US has also accused Cuba of harbouring fugitives wanted for crimes in the US, such as Assata Shakur, a former member of the Black Panther Party who was convicted of murder in the US in 1977 and has been living in Cuba since 1984.

The propaganda narrative that portrays Cuba as having supported terrorism and revolutionary movements in Latin America and around the world serves several purposes:

• It provides justification for the US government’s ongoing economic sanctions against Cuba, which have been in place since the 1960s. By portraying Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, the US government can argue that the sanctions are necessary to combat the threat posed by Cuba to regional and global security.
• It seeks to undermine the legitimacy of socialist and leftist movements in Latin America and other parts of the world. By linking Cuba to these movements, the US government can portray them as being part of a larger global network of terrorists and extremists, rather than as legitimate political movements seeking social and economic justice.
• It serves to demonise Cuba’s leadership and to cast doubt on the country’s international alliances and partnerships. By depicting Cuba as a state that supports terrorism and revolutionary movements, the US government can argue that Cuba is an unreliable partner for other countries, and that its government cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of its people or of the international community.

Evil Leader: The “evil leader” propaganda narrative has been a tool frequently used against Cuba by the United States and its Western allies. Cuba’s revolutionary leader Fidel Castro was demonised in the West as an evil dictator who oppressed his own people and threatened the stability of the region. The US government accused Cuba of supporting communist insurgencies and subversive movements in Latin America and Africa. The US also accused Cuba of exporting revolution and destabilising governments that were aligned with the US.

The propaganda campaign against Cuba portrayed Fidel Castro as a tyrant who ruled with an iron fist, suppressing political dissent and human rights. The US claimed that Cuba was a one-party state that did not allow political opposition or free media. The US also accused Cuba of engaging in state-sponsored terrorism, including the bombing of a Cubana Airlines plane in 1976 that killed 73 people. The US claimed that Cuba supported armed groups in Angola, Mozambique, and Nicaragua, and that it trained and supplied guerrilla fighters in Latin America and Africa.

J. Venezuela

The key propaganda narratives used against Venezuela aim to depict the country as a rogue state in order to justify US and Western military and economic pressure against the country and its people.

Key high level narratives assert that:

• Venezuela’s economic crisis is due to government’s mismanagement, corruption, and socialist policies
• Venezuela is a brutal dictatorship that is oppressing the Venezuelan people
• Venezuela’s government is illegitimate and the opposition is oppressed
• Venezuela’s government is involved in drug trafficking and is a threat to regional and global security
• Venezuela’s leaders have systematically oppressed their own people and violated human rights.

The key propaganda narratives employed by the USA and western allies against Venezuela are:

Socialist/Communist dictatorship: This narrative portrays the government of Venezuela, led by President Nicolas Maduro, as a socialist/communist dictatorship that is suppressing the rights and freedoms of the people. It is used to delegitimise the government and justify sanctions and intervention.

According to this narrative the Venezuelan government is engaging in human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary arrests, and extrajudicial killings of political opponents and protesters. It is alleged that the government is suppressing freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and that the country’s democratic institutions have been weakened or destroyed by the ruling party. The narrative also highlights the economic hardships faced by the Venezuelan people, blaming the government’s socialist policies for the country’s hyperinflation, food shortages, and poverty.

The purpose of this propaganda narrative is to delegitimise the government of Venezuela and to create support for foreign intervention or regime change. By portraying Venezuela as a socialist/communist dictatorship, the narrative plays into the fears and prejudices of many Americans who see socialism as a threat to democracy and freedom. The narrative also serves to justify economic sanctions and other forms of pressure on the Venezuelan government, which are seen as a way to force the government to change its policies or to bring about its collapse. Overall, the narrative seeks to portray the Venezuelan government as a threat to US national security and the stability of the region, and to create support for US intervention in the country..

Economic mismanagement: This narrative blames the economic crisis in Venezuela on the government’s mismanagement, corruption, and socialist policies. It is used to undermine public support for the government and justify economic sanctions.

One of the key propaganda narratives used by the US and its allies against Venezuela is the claim that the country’s economic crisis is a direct result of the government’s mismanagement, corruption, and socialist policies. The narrative asserts that the government’s intervention in the economy, including nationalising key industries such as oil, has led to a collapse in production and severe shortages of basic goods, such as food and medicine. This narrative is often used to justify the US sanctions and other economic measures against Venezuela, which have worsened the country’s economic situation. Critics argue that the US propaganda narrative overlooks the impact of external factors, such as the fall in oil prices, and the effects of US sanctions on the country’s economy.

The purpose of this narrative is to discredit the socialist policies of the Venezuelan government and promote the idea that socialism is inherently flawed and leads to economic ruin. It also seeks to demonise the government and its leaders, including former President Hugo Chavez and current President Nicolas Maduro, by portraying them as incompetent and corrupt. By focusing on the economic crisis, the narrative seeks to create a negative image of the country and its government, and to justify international intervention in the affairs of Venezuela.

Human rights abuses: This narrative alleges that the Venezuelan government is responsible for human rights abuses, including political repression, torture, and extra-judicial killings. It is used to delegitimise the government and justify sanctions and intervention.

The US propaganda narrative against Venezuela often includes allegations that the government is responsible for human rights abuses. The narrative includes claims of political repression, torture, and extrajudicial killings, often citing reports from human rights groups to support these allegations. The US and its allies accuse the Venezuelan government of silencing political dissent, targeting opposition politicians and activists, and suppressing freedom of the press. The narrative is aimed at discrediting the government and painting it as a brutal dictatorship that is oppressing the Venezuelan people.

The purpose of this propaganda narrative is to create a negative image of the Venezuelan government and justify international intervention to remove it from power. The US and its allies often use human rights abuses as a pretext for military intervention or economic sanctions. By highlighting these alleged abuses, they aim to generate public support for their actions and delegitimise the Venezuelan government. The narrative is also intended to undermine the legitimacy of the socialist policies implemented by the government, which the US and its allies see as a threat to their interests in the region. By portraying the government as responsible for economic mismanagement and human rights abuses, they hope to discredit socialist ideas and prevent them from gaining traction in other countries.

Electoral fraud: This narrative claims that the elections in Venezuela are rigged in favour of the government, and that the opposition is being suppressed. It is used to undermine public support for the government and justify sanctions and intervention.

The US propaganda narrative claims that the Venezuelan government rigs elections in its favour and suppresses opposition parties. This narrative is used to delegitimise the government and paint it as an authoritarian regime that does not respect the will of the people. The US has been particularly critical of the 2018 presidential election, in which President Nicolas Maduro was re-elected. The US and its allies claimed that the election was rigged and refused to recognise the results. They have since supported opposition leader Juan Guaido, who declared himself interim president, in an attempt to oust Maduro from power. The US has imposed sanctions on Venezuela, including an oil embargo, to force Maduro to step down. However, Maduro maintains the support of many Venezuelans and has remained in power.

The purpose of this propaganda narrative is to justify the US’s interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs and to support regime change efforts. By portraying the Venezuelan government as illegitimate and the opposition as oppressed, the US can claim moral superiority in its actions against the country. The narrative also serves to demonise Maduro and his government, making it easier to justify sanctions and other forms of economic pressure. The US’s ultimate goal is to install a government that is more aligned with its interests and that can provide access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves..

Drug trafficking: This narrative alleges that the Venezuelan government is involved in drug trafficking, and that it is a threat to regional and global security. It is used to delegitimise the government and justify sanctions and intervention.

The US propaganda narrative regarding Venezuela also includes the allegation that the government is involved in drug trafficking. This narrative claims that the Venezuelan government has allowed drug traffickers to operate in the country and that high-ranking officials within the government are involved in drug trafficking. The US has used this narrative to justify imposing economic sanctions on Venezuela and to build support for intervention in the country. However, there is limited evidence to support these claims, and some experts have pointed out that the US has a history of using drug trafficking allegations as a pretext for intervention in other countries.

This propaganda narrative also serves the purpose of portraying Venezuela as a threat to regional and global security. The US government has claimed that the Venezuelan government’s close ties to Cuba, Russia, and China pose a threat to the region and the world. The US has accused Venezuela of being involved in activities that destabilise other countries, such as supporting left-wing movements in Latin America and providing aid to countries like Syria and Iran. By portraying Venezuela as a threat to global security, the US can build support for its actions against the country and justify its interventionist policies in the region. However, some experts argue that these claims are exaggerated and that the US is more concerned with preserving its own interests in the region than with promoting global security.

Evil Leader: The propaganda narrative of an “evil leader” has been employed extensively by the United States and its allies against the government of Venezuela. The narrative portrays President Nicolas Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, as authoritarian leaders who have systematically oppressed their own people and violated human rights.

Specific allegations include the use of excessive force against protesters, arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, and restrictions on free speech and the press. The US government has also accused the Venezuelan government of rigging elections and suppressing political opposition, which it claims has resulted in a breakdown of democratic institutions in the country.

The US propaganda narrative against Venezuela also accuses the government of supporting terrorism and drug trafficking. The US government claims that Venezuela has provided support to groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and Hezbollah, as well as facilitating drug trafficking through the country. These allegations have been used to justify economic sanctions and other measures against the Venezuelan government, including efforts to overthrow the government and install a US-backed leader. However, many experts have challenged the validity of these claims and have accused the US of using them as a pretext for regime change and interference in the country’s affairs.

---

Note: This article was partly written and compiled using curated sections sourced from ChatGPT based on a series of carefully composed questions.