Dear Washington, your 'deterrence' against a sovereign nation is looking less like a strategy and more like a projection, isn't it?
To the architects of perpetual conflict in Washington D.C., We noted your recent consternation, or rather, the practiced hand-wringing in the mainstream press, over Iran's utterly predictable response to your ongoing bullying. The Financial Times reports Iran’s warnings about targeting US bases, seemingly struck by the audacity of a nation threatening proportional reprisal against blatant
aggression. Perhaps this comes as a shock to those accustomed to unilateral saber-rattling without consequence. One might even describe it as a classic case of projection, where the aggressor feigns surprise when the targeted victim decides to defend itself. Let's dissect this charade. For decades, the United States has deployed naval carrier groups and B-52 bombers to the Gulf, imposed paralyzing
sanctions since 1979 in the aftermath of the revolution, and consistently engaged in covert operations and direct threats, often in lockstep with its Israeli ally. This includes the publicly acknowledged 1953 CIA-MI6 coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. That's a long memory for intervention, isn't it? Yet, when Iran's leadership, whether it's
Ayatollah Khamenei or members of the IRGC, articulates a defensive doctrine against these existential encroachments, it's framed as 'belligerence' or 'destabilizing.' The sheer asymmetry of this narrative is breathtaking, considering that Iran's military budget is roughly 1/20th of the United States' annual expenditure. Furthermore, the incessant drumbeat about Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions