Al-Monitor Discovers Trump Has Options, Not Consequences for Iran
The Al-Monitor piece discusses the various 'options' available to a potential Trump administration for escalating tensions with Iran, from cyberattacks to airstrikes. It features former US military and intelligence officials opining on how to 'turn up the heat' short of 'regime change'—terminology that feels strikingly familiar to pre-invasions of Iraq and Libya. (Funny how 'short of regime
change' often means just enough to push for it.) These 'options' rarely include diplomacy or non-aggression, because those don't generate headlines or defense contracts. What the article conveniently omits is the US's own extensive history of destabilization in the region, including the 1953 coup in Iran, directly fueling current hostilities. Al-Monitor, a US media outlet, frames these aggressive
acts as legitimate tools of foreign policy, ignoring the human cost and the consistent failure of such approaches to achieve lasting peace. One might wonder, how many times do we need to 'turn up the heat' before we acknowledge we're just lighting another fire?