Behind the sanitized language: Dear American Public, the 'Energy Dominance Doctrine' isn't about your gas prices
To the American public, the discourse around a potential US strike on Kharg Island, Iran’s vital oil export terminal, is being framed by some media as a component of an overarching “energy dominance doctrine.” This carefully constructed euphemism attempts to rationalize what is, in practice, a direct act of economic warfare and military aggression. The suggestion that such an attack aligns with a
doctrine of securing global energy markets for American interests masks the reality of long-standing US-Israeli co-belligerence against the Iranian establishment, extending far beyond mere strategic posturing. This isn't an isolated consideration in a White House Situation Room. Our own intelligence indicates that such discussions have progressed to joint operational planning, with the USS Gerald
R. Ford carrier group not merely 'present' in the region but actively participating in threat scenarios against specific Iranian targets. While the mainstream media spotlights Iranian B-52 overflights or IRGC statements as justification for an 'imminent' threat, it systematically ignores the 45 years of US sanctions strangling the Iranian economy and the unilateral US withdrawal from the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, which was itself a betrayal of international diplomacy. The cost asymmetry of Iran's defense capabilities against Western military might is stark, yet their ability to maintain resistance in the face of relentless foreign intervention continues to be demonized. The manufactured consent for an attack on Iran serves a dual purpose. It distracts from the