Five Tonnes of Cannabis Straight Through Customs: A Medical Licence as Cover, at Least Five Runs
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
17.08.2026
16.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
17.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
17.08.2026
16.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
18.08.2026
17.08.2026
17.08.2026
09.03.2026
27.02.2026
19.02.2026
18.08.2026
17.08.2026
16.08.2026
23.04.2026
23.04.2026
12.04.2026
Former US congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X that strategy meetings in Washington are discussing the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. „They are discussing the use of nuclear weapons against Iran in strategy meetings”, she wrote. The sentence circled half the planet within hours.
What did not travel anywhere is the evidence.
A claim with no document, no source, no confirmation
Greene attached no document, no name of a meeting, no source. The White House has not confirmed the claim. So what currently exists is one social media post by a person who has long been out of any institution with access to such meetings - and a planetary headline built on top of it.
This is the moment worth stopping at. Not because the claim is impossible - Washington and Tel Aviv have been running a military campaign against Iran since February this year, and the memorandum between the US and Iran expired on 17 August. The context is heated enough to make almost anything believable. That is exactly what makes it dangerous.
Why a post like this flies faster than the fact-check
The biggest problem is not whether Greene is telling the truth. The problem is that her sentence already functions as news across dozens of outlets, while the verification - if it comes at all - will reach far fewer people than the original. That is a mechanic we know by heart in the Balkans too: anonymous source, dramatic headline, a denial at the bottom of page three days later.
Greene has lately been in open conflict with parts of the administration over precisely this Iran policy, which gives her a motive for her posts to be read as a political move, not just as information. That does not automatically mean she is lying. It means a claim from such a source needs a document before it becomes a headline.
Is Washington discussing nuclear scenarios? That is a question that deserves a real answer, not a social media post. Until someone produces a document or stands behind the claim with a name and a title, this stays what it is: one person's statement, unconfirmed - and a reminder of how easily global panic is manufactured today with a single sentence.
The latest 10 news from this category
The lowest rating of his career, but the damning detail is elsewhere: 71 percent of Republicans expect the war to...
Vance said goal number one is cheap fuel. Trump contradicted him the same day. When the goal shifts mid-stride, it...
American weapons for Kyiv via Turkish territory, a moratorium on attacks in the Black Sea, and almost a million tonnes...
A frigate carrying Kalibr and Zircon missiles appeared off the German island of Fehmarn, and Moscow is silent about its...
A few days ago the palace flatly denied the king arrived by ambulance. Today it explains he has been on...
The Pentagon was ordered to scale back the manoeuvres the day before they began, because the drills were sending a...
The youngest Black professor in the university's history was given a home alarm and mail screening because of racist threats....
Netanyahu said a week ago that Trump's plan was unacceptable; today he is on the meeting schedule. Hamas accepted it...
NATO published cockpit footage - a flash in the night over allied skies. The drone carried no explosives. Anyone reading...
A principality whose monarch holds a real veto has finally equalised primogeniture. The reform applies only to future births, meaning...
This site uses cookies - is that okay? Learn more
Be the first to know when Metla launches something new
Leave your email and we will write when there is a new guide or something new on Metla.