For decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran and its theocratic leaders have exported their fanatical Islamist ideology (and terrorism) throughout the Middle East and beyond, via its so-called ‘axis of resistance.’

In addition to brutally repressing its own population, the Islamic Republic has armed, funded, trained and offered logistical support to terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others, as part of its war against the United States, Israel and its ideological opponents.

However, in recent months, much of the Canadian news media has framed the recent armed conflict between American and Israeli forces and the Iranian regime as being a nefarious Israeli conspiracy to pressure the United States into war and/or an unprovoked war against Tehran.

That latter message was the implication in a recent opinion column in The Globe and Mail by European Bureau Chief Eric Reguly.

In his commentary on the U.S.-Iranian ceasefire agreement, “The U.S.-Iran peace deal is crisis management, not resolution. Oil’s fall could be temporary,” Reguly, who though he is tasked to be a neutral and objective reporter is granted an opinion byline on a topic he typically reports on, wrote that “for sure, both the U.S. and Iran are highly motivated to end a war that Iran did not start.”

Whether the Islamic Republic truly is motivated to end the conflict is entirely debatable, but the more problematic claim is Reguly’s statement that “Iran did not start” the war. For decades, it (and its proxies) have engaged in shadow warfare, killing scores of Americans and Israelis, both soldiers and civilians. Iranian proxies have also carried out bombing attacks against Jewish civilians in Argentina, killing hundreds.

To claim that Tehran did not start the war is somewhere between selective omission and overt disinformation on Reguly’s part.

Elsewhere in his column, Reguly wrote that “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet ministers have ruled out withdrawing Israeli forces from southern Lebanon (or Gaza or Syria). As long as the Israelis remain in Lebanon, Hezbollah will treat them as an occupying army and fight back, triggering retaliation.”

Here, Reguly offered no acknowledgement whatsoever as to why Israel is present in Lebanon at all, namely seeking to stop Hezbollah’s incessant rocket and drone attacks into northern Israel. Instead, he gave oxygen to Hezbollah’s belligerence, repeating its view that Israel’s presence in a south Lebanon buffer zone would have the terrorist group see them as “an occupying army.”

In 2000, Israel fully withdrew from Lebanon, yet Hezbollah did not disband, disarm, nor abandon its goal of annihilating Israel. Instead, the terrorist group continued to see all of Israel as occupied. In 2006 – six years after Israel withdrew from Lebanon – Hezbollah launched a cross-border attack on Israel, killing eight soldiers, kidnapping two others and launching a five-week war. Israel did not ‘occupy’ Lebanon prior to that attack, but it did not stop Hezbollah from attacking the Jewish State all the same.

Yet all while painting Israel’s presence in a buffer zone as an apparent obstacle to peace, Reguly did not educate readers about Hezbollah’s genocidal ideology (and that of its patron, the Iranian regime).

Even before his June 16 opinion column, Eric Reguly is no stranger to selective omissions; in previous reports, he has covered Israel’s legal blockade of Gaza but largely ignored Hamas’ presence in the subjugation of Gazans and its widespread use of Gaza civilian infrastructure for its terrorism.