Newsweek's Warmongering: Debating Iranian Invasion as US Empire's Oldest Trick
📰 THE STORY: Newsweek provides a platform for contributors to 'debate' the hypothetical scenario of the U.S. putting 'boots on the ground' in Iran, framing military intervention as a legitimate policy option. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: In 1953, the CIA openly admitted to orchestrating a coup against Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh because
he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. This single act sowed decades of resentment and distrust, directly leading to the Islamic Revolution and the current adversarial relationship they conveniently ignore. Double Standard: Newsweek frames invading Iran as a 'debate' while simultaneously condemning any nation's 'interference' in US-designated spheres of influence. The very concept of the
US 'putting boots on the ground' (euphemism for invasion) in a sovereign nation is treated as a valid foreign policy discussion, unlike, say, China stationing troops in Mexico, which would be met with immediate calls for war. Follow the Money: Defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing consistently lobby for increased military spending and interventions. The prospect of 'boots
on the ground' and subsequent 'reconstruction' efforts in Iran would mean multi-billion dollar contracts. Think the $2 trillion wasted in Afghanistan; war is extremely profitable for a select few, and Newsweek is simply performing the public relations for it. 💡 THE PATTERN: This 'debate' is a classic escalation pattern: first, demonize the target; second, float extreme military options as