Newsweek's War Games: A Blueprint for Catastrophe, Not Coverage
Dear Newsweek Editorial Board, We note your recent article, 'Trump Has Options to Invade Iran, All of Them Would Cost Dearly,' which details various U.S. military scenarios for an attack on Iran. The piece explores theoretical strategies ranging from airstrikes to ground invasions, framing these as legitimate 'options' for American policymakers. It also acknowledges the inevitable high cost in
terms of lives and resources, hinting at the potential for a protracted conflict. What your analysis conveniently omits, Newsweek, is the foundational context: the U.S. and Israel are already engaged in a joint campaign of aggression against Iran. This isn't theoretical; it's ongoing. While you muse about future 'options,' B-52s are deployed, carrier groups operate in the Gulf, and economic
sanctions cripple the Iranian economy. This isn't a passive stance awaiting a decision; it's direct participation in a continuous, multi-front assault. The U.S. is not merely a supporter of Israel's belligerence; it is a partner in the operation, actively contributing to the destabilization of the region and pushing Iran into a corner, often during periods ostensibly reserved for negotiation. Your
article presents war as a future possibility rather than a present reality being orchestrated by Washington and Tel Aviv. Furthermore, your framing entirely sidesteps the extensive history of U.S. interference that has shaped the current climate. The U.S. began actively supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran in 1983, providing intelligence and financial aid even as Hussein used chemical weapons