If I’m not mistaken, the reasons for the American distaste for the Iranian regime are that the Iranians continue to pursue a nuclear weapon, and that the Iranians are a destabilizing influence in the middle East. Occasionally there’s some talk of the human rights record in Iran, but for the most part the Americans are focussed on bombs and terrorists.
The Americans continue to talk about the shit the Iranians are stirring up with the Saudi’s and the Israeli’s and they hold the Iranian backed militias responsible for attacking and killing American soldiers in the middle east. Primarily Iraq, which for some reason was full to the tits with American soldiers. I kind of understood the American soldiers in Afghanistan but Iraq? I had this post 9-11 sense that the Americans in charge gathered in a room in the Whitehouse and spun a wheel of misfortune. The slots on that wheel were filled with brown Muslim countries but that wheel was definitely weighted to land on Iraq. But the reasons for American military presence in Iraq aside, it would seem to me that if you send your soldiers to shoot at people in another country, then you shouldn’t be too surprised when people start shooting back. But their own actions don’t prevent the Americans from proclaiming that the Iranians are bad actors in the region, and a destabilizing influence prone to violence.
Let’s start with the bad actors in the region statement. I assume that means the Iranians are fucking with the American interests. American interests include the sons of Isaac that they sell warplanes to and the cooperative sons of Ishmael that buy Manhattan condo’s, sell oil to American companies and lend money to the Kushner’s. The non-cooperative sons of Ishmael are evidently the problem.
Wouldn’t you think that if we’re setting a bar for determining who might be an area bad actor that we should look at some history? Let’s try some history of the Americas just for shits and giggles.
The Americans currently have active sanctions on their Southern and Northers neighbors and they’re bullshitting about national security as the reason. The Americans have even more sanctions against Cuba because the Cubans refused to let American sugar and banana companies own the Island. These hurt feeling have been going on since the sixties. Kind of like the hurt feelings the Americans have harbored against the Iranians since their Shah homeboy got the boot and the embassy hostage marathon began.
Anyway, let’s move South in the Western hemisphere and look at some activity from the United States.
The Americans have invaded Grenada, Panama and Haiti recently. They are now considering military action against Venezuela. These are just the overt operations. Don’t forget the so called covert regime change operations. In fact, if you take ten minutes and hit Google you’re going to find out that there isn’t a country in South or Central America that the Yanks haven’t yanked at one time or another. In each case the story was the same. Some populist government that the Americans decided was socialist needed replacing with a cooperative dictator. Economic chokeholds didn’t work and so sometimes the armed forces arrived and sometimes the CIA just trained, armed and supported an insurrection. It depended on what kind of mood the Americans were in and how much outrage could be generated among the general population to justify a public or a private intervention.
To protect American interests of course.
Here’s a link if you think I’m bullshitting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America
So, I guess the question I would have is how the Americans reach a decision that a country is a bad regional actor. However they reach the decision it appears that the criterion they use doesn’t apply to them.
If we stick with the American assertion that regional bad actors need to be stopped or overthrown or exterminated, then I think it’s a good idea to look at American actions in the middle East. I suppose that technically the Americans aren’t a regional bad actor but depending on your perspective you could make the case that they’re a non-regional bad actor. For example, the Iraq invasion was based on bullshit. There were no WMD’s and the Bush boys fucking knew it. But they invaded anyway, and after the initial invasion the infrastructure of the country collapsed and that collapse let to ISIS. Sounds kind of destabilizing to me.
The cost in dollars was three trillion. The cost in deaths is around three hundred thousand. Three hundred thousand dead people that can be attributed to a destabilizing influence prone to violence. The thing is though, it wasn’t the Iranians that invaded Iraq.
I should probably qualify that I’m not a fan of the current Iranian regime. The bearded fucks that run the show hit all or most of my dislike buttons. Religious mythology and the caveman rules that go with that mythology aren’t anything I find appealing. But, I don’t think a hell of a lot of the current American administration either, and to be honest with you I don’t know if I’m more concerned with an Ayatollah with an a-bomb or Trump with a nuclear trigger.
Neither option seems desirable. But, push comes to shove I’ve got to go with the Americans. I have some faith remaining that they retain some regard for personal freedom and democracy, regardless of their current president. If Trump wins in 2020 then I may have to recalculate, but for the moment the press can still question the antics of the dear leader and congress is at least looking like it might have some influence in the current balance of power struggle.
But another four years of Don and his minions may change things. If in four years, the Americans decide that hanging homosexuals from cranes is a good idea then I’ll reconsider. If in the next couple years Alabama decides that stoning women for infidelity is appropriate, then again I may need to reconsider. If, sometime after 2020 the Americans decide that criticism of Christ or Christianity is punishable by death then it’s time for a recalculation.
For now, I have to say that I’m aligned with many more American values that Iranian. But if Trump were to have a massive coronary and Pastor Pence took over. then both Iran and America would have a deluded cleric in charge and that may change things again.
I have a proposal that Trump and Bolton and Pompeo should consider.
Instead of attacking Iran, they should just go ahead and increase American military assets in Israel and maybe Saudi Arabia. Then they can actively participate in fighting the Iranian proxy militias wherever they might be. Also if they decide to Lou Dobbs the Iranian pipelines and Oil facilities they won’t need aircraft carriers.
While they’re in Israel, the Israeli’s can show them how to build a proper wall, and they can test their military systems and personnel against Hamas. Kind of a permanent training mission.
While in Saudi Arabia they can learn how to deal with journalists and anyone else that criticizes Trump.
A win, win don’t you think?
I think too that the Israeli’s and the Saudi’s will pay for the American presence, unlike those ungrateful NATO members, and Donnie can crow about the deal that makes America some deficit fighting greenbacks.
Sounds more logical than an invasion.
Or,
The Saudi’s could cede a few thousand acres of sand to the Americans, maybe somewhere along the demarcated border with Yemen and Oman. Then the Yanks could plant a flag, call it American soil and truly claim to be a regional actor.
The good or bad part would of course remain subjective.