Welcome back, everyone, and once again, thank you for your continued support. In this article, we want to talk about wartime propaganda over the past 25 years. We will begin in 2001, around the time of the September 11 attacks, when many of us started becoming more aware of the corruption, misinformation, and manipulation taking place throughout the world. We will examine several stories from different periods in history. First, we will present the story the public was told. Then, we will compare it with what the available evidence later revealed to be true. In this world, many things come down to someone’s view, interpretation, or perspective. Yet people often accept those perspectives as absolute truth, rarely stopping to question whether what they are being told is accurate. Some may not want to take the time to conduct their own research. Others may simply have different priorities or no interest in investigating these subjects for themselves.
That is why this article will examine moments from the past 25 years when a single statement, headline, photograph, or public narrative could have changed the way millions of people understood an event. One story can make someone appear to be a hero or a criminal, a victim or an enemy, or a good person or a bad person. Sometimes, those impressions remain in the public’s mind long after the original story has been corrected. We are going to examine all of it. Today, we once again find ourselves watching a war surrounded by predictions, conflicting reports, and speculation. What some initially described as a “72-hour war” became a matter of weeks, followed by more predictions from economists, analysts, commentators, and other public figures. Many claim to be in contact with highly credible sources, yet their predictions repeatedly fail to come true. We believe part of the reason is that no single person truly knows everything happening behind the scenes. Much of what the public hears is based on incomplete information, interpretation, and speculation. Everyone is searching for signs that might explain what is happening and what may happen next.
This is our perspective and what we genuinely believe: much of the world operates on speculation, with people constantly trying to predict what will happen next. We believe this helps explain why there is so much misinformation, why reports frequently contradict one another, and why so many parts of these stories fail to make sense or add up. Throughout this article, we will distinguish between documented falsehoods, exaggerated public narratives, intelligence failures, incorrect predictions, and claims that remain disputed or unverified. Not every inaccurate statement is necessarily deliberate propaganda, but every major claim deserves to be questioned and examined against the evidence. We hope you enjoy this article, and we sincerely appreciate the support you have shown for the content we have provided over the past two years.
From Afghanistan to Iraq: The Stories We Were Told Versus the Reality
Beginning around September 11, 2001, and the start of the war in Afghanistan, Americans were told that the Taliban would be defeated quickly. Many officials and commentators expected the Taliban government to collapse permanently and believed any remaining insurgency would be short-lived. The initial military operation did remove the Taliban government from power within weeks. However, the Taliban insurgency continued for nearly 20 years, and the Taliban ultimately returned to power in August 2021. This was a major strategic prediction that proved profoundly wrong. It reminds us of what we believe is happening today with the Iran war, as commentators confidently predict that the conflict will not last long. These predictions can have consequences beyond the battlefield. People make investment and financial decisions based on statements about how long a war might last and how it could affect oil, stocks, inflation, interest rates, global trade, and the broader economy. Claiming that the Iran war will not last as long as the Afghanistan war is still only a prediction. No commentator, economist, analyst, or investor can guarantee how long it will continue. Even President Donald Trump, despite having considerable influence over American military decisions, does not control every country, response, or unforeseen event that could extend or expand the conflict.
Overconfident predictions can therefore hurt people both inside and outside the investment community. This is why opinions and forecasts should never be presented as guaranteed facts. Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction another major claim from this period concerned the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Americans were told that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons, was rebuilding an active nuclear-weapons program, and could rapidly deploy certain weapons. Most importantly, Iraq was presented as an urgent and growing threat. Does that sound familiar? To us, it sounds similar to some of the warnings being repeated today about Iran and nuclear weapons. Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, investigators did not find the active nuclear-weapons program or the chemical and biological stockpiles described before the war. A small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were eventually recovered, but these were not the active stockpiles used to justify the invasion. The central prewar claims were not supported by what investigators found. The Iraq Survey Group, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, and other official investigations documented major failures in the intelligence process. The Senate concluded that many of the intelligence community’s principal judgments were overstated or unsupported by the underlying evidence.
This was an enormous failure involving the U.S. intelligence community, government officials, and media commentators. Intelligence assessments containing uncertainty and disagreement were often presented to the public as settled facts. A similar debate followed the 2025 American strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that Iran’s key nuclear facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated.” The administration also argued that even Iranian officials had acknowledged the enormous damage. The evidence supports the conclusion that the facilities suffered severe and extensive damage. However, claims of complete and permanent obliteration went beyond what independent inspectors could initially verify. The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, reported severe damage but could not immediately verify the condition of every underground facility, nuclear component, or uranium stockpile. That does not prove that the strikes caused little damage. It means that the word “obliterated” was presented with more certainty than the available independent evidence justified. Whether the Iranian nuclear program was permanently destroyed, temporarily delayed, or partly relocated remained an open question. Presenting an unfinished assessment as an unquestionable fact risks becoming another example of a wartime narrative being declared before all the evidence is available.
Another major story emerged in 2003 involving Private First Class Jessica Lynch. The initial narrative claimed that Lynch had fought until she ran out of ammunition, killed several Iraqi soldiers, been shot multiple times, been stabbed,resisted her captors, been rescued during an intense firefight. It was the perfect wartime hero story. There was only one problem: much of it was not true. Later evidence showed that Lynch’s rifle jammed and she never fired it. She had not been shot or stabbed. Most of her serious injuries came from the crash of the Humvee in which she was riding. The rescue itself was real, and Lynch’s service and suffering were real. What was false or exaggerated was the dramatic public story constructed around her capture and rescue. Lynch herself later criticized the government for using battlefield events to create heroic legends that did not reflect what actually happened. This story demonstrates how quickly a real person can be turned into a symbol for public consumption. Officials and news organizations presented Lynch as the kind of hero they believed the public needed at that moment. In doing so, they overshadowed her actual experience and the experiences of the other soldiers who were with her.
A similar case occurred in 2004 with Pat Tillman, a former NFL safety for the Arizona Cardinals who left professional football to enlist in the United States Army. The original public account claimed that Tillman had been killed heroically while fighting enemy forces in Afghanistan. The reality was that he had been killed by friendly fire from members of his own unit. Senior officers learned that friendly fire was a strong possibility before the original public narrative was corrected. Despite that information, the enemy-fire story continued to circulate publicly, and Tillman was awarded the Silver Star using an account that omitted the central fact that fellow American soldiers had fired the fatal shots. Tillman’s family and the American public were allowed to believe one version of his death before eventually learning another. His family discovered that their son, brother, relative, and friend had not been killed by enemy fighters, as they were originally led to believe. He had been killed in a chaotic friendly-fire incident, and the military failed to communicate that truth promptly and honestly. Official investigations established serious misconduct, failures of reporting, and the dissemination of misleading information. However, they did not establish that Tillman was deliberately murdered or killed “in cold blood.” The documented scandal is already serious: military officials allowed an inaccurate heroic narrative to continue while critical facts about his death were known within the chain of command. The public did not need a fictional version of Pat Tillman to consider him a hero. He had already walked away from a successful NFL career and a multimillion-dollar contract to serve his country. The truth of his life and sacrifice was powerful enough without changing the circumstances of his death.
Americans were also told that Iraq would stabilize quickly, that a democratic Iraqi government could help spread democracy throughout the region, and that most U.S. troops would withdraw within months. Officials suggested that Iraqi oil revenue could pay for much of the country’s reconstruction. None of these outcomes occurred on the timeline presented to the public. Instead, Iraq experienced a prolonged insurgency, sectarian violence, political instability, extensive destruction, and the later rise of ISIS. American troops remained for years, and the United States spent tens of billions of dollars on reconstruction. These statements were not all the same. Some were predictions based on poor planning or unrealistic assumptions. Others were optimistic talking points used to build public support for the war. Some may have been sincerely believed, while others appear to have minimized known risks. Whatever the motivation, the result was the same: the public was given a version of the future that made the war sound shorter, easier, less expensive, and more successful than it ultimately became. All of these examples occurred between 2001 and 2004, within only a few years of the September 11 attacks. In that short period, Americans were given inaccurate or misleading narratives concerning the defeat of the Taliban, Iraq’s weapons programs, the future of Iraqi democracy, the rescue of Jessica Lynch, and the death of Pat Tillman. Some of these stories were intelligence failures. Others were failed predictions, exaggerations, institutional cover-ups, or heroic narratives built from incomplete information. They should not all be labeled in exactly the same way, but they demonstrate the same danger: during war, a powerful story can travel around the world before the truth has even entered the room. Next, we will move closer to the present and examine the period from 2021 through today before offering our final thoughts.
From the Ghost of Kyiv to Iran: How Wartime Narratives Continue
Now we move forward to 2022, when the story of the Ghost of Kyiv first came to life. The Ghost of Kyiv was described as a single, mysterious Ukrainian fighter pilot who had shot down numerous Russian aircraft. The story circulated for weeks. Videos supposedly showing the pilot’s victories spread across social media, even though some of the footage looked like it came from a video game. The Ghost of Kyiv was discussed on podcasts, television programs, YouTube channels, and social-media platforms around the world. The outcome, however, did not match the original story. Ukraine later acknowledged that the Ghost of Kyiv was a symbolic legend rather than one identifiable fighter pilot. Ukrainian officials described the character as representing the collective bravery of the country’s pilots. In other words, the Ghost of Kyiv may have served as a powerful symbol of resistance, but the legendary fighter ace presented to the public was not a real individual with the record attributed to him. Another early claim involved Snake Island.
According to the initial story, all the Ukrainian defenders stationed on the island were killed after telling a Russian warship, “Russian warship, go fuck yourself.” The story made the defenders sound like fearless heroes who chose death rather than surrender. The phrase was real, but the original account of their deaths was not. The defenders had not all been killed. Most survived, were captured by Russian forces, and later returned to Ukraine through prisoner exchanges. Once again, a dramatic story traveled around the world before the complete facts were available. That does not mean the defenders were not courageous. Refusing a demand from a Russian warship while facing a military attack required bravery. However, the public was initially given a more dramatic version of the story one in which every defender died heroically because that version created a stronger emotional response. These examples show that propaganda does not always require inventing an entire event. Sometimes, it begins with a real event and then changes, exaggerates, or removes key details to create a more powerful narrative. Now let us fast-forward to the current war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. The conflict began on February 28, 2026. As of August 10, 2026, it has continued for approximately five months and thirteen days or 163 days. At the beginning, some commentators suggested that Iran might not last three days. Others predicted that the war would be finished within approximately four weeks. Yet the conflict is still continuing, and there is no confirmed, lasting agreement that clearly brings it to an end. There have been military victories, negotiations, pauses, temporary agreements, and changes in strategy. What there has not been is a durable peace settlement capable of ending the broader conflict.
Iranian officials have rejected some of President Donald Trump’s claims that direct negotiations are underway. Some commentators have suggested that Iran could attempt to delay serious negotiations until 2028, when Trump’s current term approaches its end. However, we have not found a verified official Iranian declaration establishing 2028 as an absolute deadline. For that reason, this should currently be treated as an interpretation or prediction not a confirmed fact. If Iran does refuse meaningful negotiations for the remainder of Trump’s presidency, our prediction of a possible 42-month conflict could become more realistic. But, just like the forecasts examined throughout this article, our projection remains a prediction. Events can change quickly, and no one can guarantee how long the war will continue. During this conflict, there have been several reported peace proposals, ceasefires, memorandums of understanding, and negotiation efforts. Some appeared “promising” for only a short time before the parties began accusing one another of violating the terms or misrepresenting what had actually been agreed upon. This has all occurred within the past year. President Trump has stated on multiple occasions that the war was either nearly finished or moving toward an end. At one point, he acknowledged that a leader should never declare a war over too early, while still suggesting that the war was essentially over. Fast-forward to today: the war is not over. Military action, threats, economic pressure, conflicting diplomatic claims, and disputes over the Strait of Hormuz continue. Once again, statements that sounded certain at the time have failed to match the events that followed.
The reported rescue of American service members inside Iran has also produced competing narratives. The official American account describes a real and extremely difficult operation to rescue the two crew members of a downed F-15E Strike Eagle. Both service members were reportedly recovered alive. Iran, however, has claimed that the rescue mission was actually a cover for an unsuccessful American attempt to seize enriched uranium stored near Isfahan. Similar allegations have spread through social media, podcasts, and alternative news outlets. At this time, the claim that the rescue operation was secretly an attempt to steal uranium has not been independently proven. It remains an allegation promoted by Iran and repeated by commentators. The available public evidence confirms that a rescue took place, but many operational details remain classified or dependent on statements from government officials. This is exactly why wartime reporting must be approached carefully. The American government has one version. Iran has another. Commentators then select the version that supports their existing beliefs, often presenting speculation as if it were confirmed evidence. The responsible position is to acknowledge what has been established, identify what remains disputed, and avoid turning an unverified theory into another supposed fact. As we can see throughout this article, propaganda becomes especially aggressive during wartime. It can involve fabricated heroes, exaggerated victories, premature announcements, manipulated imagery, inaccurate casualty figures, and dramatic accounts that overstate what actually happened.
Propaganda does not come only from major news organizations or governments. It also comes from people we follow on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, X, podcasts, and other online platforms. Some of these personalities promote narratives that are not true. Others repeat claims they have never independently verified. Some may sincerely believe what they are saying, while others may be pushing a story they do not fully believe because it attracts views, subscribers, attention, influence, or money. A person can claim to have highly credible sources, but that does not automatically make the information accurate. A confident voice, a large audience, or a successful prediction from the past does not guarantee that the person knows what will happen next. We will discuss these narratives in the next part of this article, where we will also provide our final thoughts. We hope the examples presented here have made the pattern clear: overstatements, failed predictions, incomplete stories, and wartime propaganda have appeared repeatedly throughout the past 25 years. We understand that much of this information may not be new to our readers. This section is intended as a refresher, especially because of the current war, the instability in the financial markets, and our belief that significantly more economic, political, and military chaos may still be ahead. The central question is no longer whether more propaganda will appear. The questions are: How much more will appear, what form will it take, who will promote it, and how many people will act on it before the truth becomes clear?
Final Thoughts: Propaganda, Market Predictions, and the Importance of Thinking for Yourself
To finish this article, we want to return to something we discussed earlier: the commentators and personalities we watch on YouTube, podcasts, television, and social media who have promoted narratives that have not come true or, at the very least, have not come true within the time frames their audiences expected. One example is silver. Some commentators predicted that silver would reach $300 per ounce, potentially climbing even higher. That prediction has not come to fruition. Silver has also failed to reclaim the record high it reached earlier in 2026, when it briefly traded above $120 per ounce. As of August 10, 2026, silver was trading around $64 per ounce. We still believe that silver will eventually rise above $100 again, but we have always tried to be honest about our expectations. We recognize that there is a significant difference between saying something is possible and telling people that it is guaranteed to happen within a specific period. Silver, gold, copper, platinum, and palladium are among the main reasons we became involved in the mining sector. They are also a major reason we started writing these articles. We have a genuine love for mining because mining is in our blood and part of our family. However, loving the sector does not mean we should ignore risks, exaggerate potential returns, or promote a narrative that could ultimately hurt other people. We want to remain honest, transparent, and upfront with our readers, even when that means acknowledging uncertainty or admitting that a market may not move as quickly as we hope. Another narrative promoted by some market commentators is that the S&P 500 will rise to 8,000, 8,500, or potentially even higher. Some of these predictions were made when the S&P 500 was trading near 6,800. As of the market close on August 10, 2026, the index stood at approximately 7,753.12. That means the S&P has moved significantly higher, but it has not yet reached 8,000. It is important to be fair: if these forecasts were presented as year-end targets, they have not necessarily failed because the year is not over. However, when commentators repeatedly promote large upside targets without emphasizing the uncertainty, some investors may interpret those forecasts as promises of quick gains.
We know how investors can be, especially newer investors. Many are searching for an opportunity to make money quickly. If someone entered a trade expecting the S&P 500 to reach 8,000 or 8,500 almost immediately, that person may have become impatient, sold too early, or taken a loss during a temporary decline. The target could eventually be reached, but the journey and timing still matter. A long-term investor may be able to tolerate market volatility. A short-term trader using leverage, options, or borrowed money may not have that same flexibility. A prediction can ultimately be correct and still cause someone to lose money if the timing is wrong. Before the current war began, some commentators claimed that President Donald Trump was not interested in a war with Iran. They argued that the United States had no reason or incentive to become directly involved and concluded that the war would not happen. Fast-forward to today, and the United States is involved in a conflict that has continued for 163 days. Anyone who made trades based entirely on the prediction that there would be no war could have been hurt. An investor may have owned positions that were performing well before the conflict but declined afterward because of changes in oil prices, inflation expectations, interest rates, shipping routes, commodity prices, or geopolitical risk. Some of those investments may not have reclaimed the prices at which the investor originally entered. This does not mean that every commentator who made the wrong prediction deliberately lied. Some may have sincerely believed that the economic and political costs would prevent the war. The lesson is that confidence does not equal certainty, and no analyst, politician, economist, or social-media personality can predict the future with complete accuracy. That includes us.
We prefer to be direct and straightforward about what we believe is happening at the time. As conditions change, our analysis can also change because the market does not owe anyone consistency. We are traders, and we trade regularly. Sometimes we hold a stock for one day. Other times, we hold it for one week, one month, or one year. We are also currently involved in a private placement that has required a holding period of approximately two years. We do not use one holding period or one strategy for every investment. Our style of trading will not be appropriate for everyone. Every person has a different financial situation, risk tolerance, time horizon, and level of experience. However, we believe that an active and flexible approach could become increasingly valuable as the market grows more difficult. Investors may need to understand when it is time to rotate between different sectors, reduce risk, take profits, or wait for a better opportunity. They may also need to learn how to read charts or subscribe to someone who provides clear and useful technical analysis. There are analysts such as Gareth Soloway and Michael Oliver who provide chart-based market analysis. Readers can also find traders sharing charts on X, including Don Johnson, along with the charts and analysis that we publish ourselves. We share this information because we want to help other people learn and succeed. Our goal is not to hold anyone back or create fear so that we can benefit from it. Our goal is to bring everyone up with us so that we can grow and thrive together. At the same time, readers should never follow us or anyone else without asking questions and conducting their own research. Charts are analytical tools, not guarantees. All investing and trading involve risk, and nothing in this article should be interpreted as personalized financial advice.
Thank You for Your Continued Support We sincerely hope you are finding value in our content. We hope you enjoy our opinion pieces, appreciate our company reviews, and find our market analysis and charts useful. Whether you agree or disagree with our conclusions, we appreciate everyone who takes the time to read our work and share thoughtful feedback. We would also like to thank all the new subscribers who have joined us, especially during the past two months. Our subscriber growth had previously been relatively stagnant, so seeing so many new readers discover and support our work has meant a great deal to us. We began creating this content in 2024 and launched our Substack in 2025, publishing our first article around May 2025. We have now been doing this for more than a year. We encourage new readers to explore our earlier articles and share their thoughts. Looking back at older work also gives everyone including us an opportunity to evaluate which ideas proved correct, which ones did not, and how our thinking has developed over time. Thank you to all of our new subscribers. Thank you to our paid subscribers. Thank you to our founding subscribers. Most importantly, thank you to everyone who has continued to read, share, question, and support our work. We appreciate every one of you. Thank you so much for your continued support. Be sure to check out Celeste solums take on the army mad scientists report on great power struggles. We posted a photo from the report and will put the link below.
561. The New Rules of the Game: 10 Key Lessons on Great Power Competition | Mad Scientist Laboratory
