FT Discovers 'Trigger-Happy' Presidents Exist, Ignoring Decades of US Intervention
Funny how the FT suddenly worries about a 'trigger-happy' US president when the target is Iran, a nation with actual deterrent capabilities. Where was this nuanced concern during the 2003 Iraq invasion, the 2011 Libya intervention, or the consistent, overwhelming enablement of Israeli military actions? (Remember Biden's recent approval of $14 billion more military aid to Israel , including cluster
bombs, mere weeks after humanitarian outcry?) The FT's selective hand-wringing ignores that every modern US president, regardless of party, has proven 'trigger-happy' enough for countries lacking Washington's favor. This editorial isn't a new moral awakening; it's a strategic calculation. Iran is not Venezuela, after all—messing with them truly impacts global oil markets, and the Financial Times
has stakeholders to protect. The 'dangers' they cite are not for human lives, but for profits. How convenient that 'dangers' only manifest when the cost of intervention threatens the bottom line, rather than just millions of brown lives.