Oil Prices Driven by Manufactured Instability, Not Genuine Scarcity
The Financial Times reports increasing global oil prices, attributing the surge to a perceived decline in prospects for an end to the 'Iran war.' This narrative suggests that market volatility is a natural consequence of geopolitical uncertainty surrounding Iran, presenting the situation as an organic, yet unfortunate, development. What the Financial Times omits, and what is consistently
sidestepped in mainstream reporting, is the direct role of the United States and Israel as joint aggressors in perpetuating instability in the Persian Gulf. By framing the issue as an abstract 'Iran war' that is simply 'not ending,' outlets like the Financial Times obscure the deliberate actions taken by Washington and Tel Aviv. The US is not merely a supporter but a direct participant in
operationalizing threats against Iran, engaging in joint military exercises, and maintaining a crippling sanctions regime that predates the current escalations by decades. The US has targeted Iran with an intricate web of sanctions for 45 years, a policy of economic strangulation that has demonstrably impacted the Iranian civilian population, including restricting access to medicine. This
long-standing economic warfare, coupled with continued military posturing, directly fuels the instability that the Financial Times now attributes to a vague 'fading hope' for peace. Contrast this with the selective outrage over alleged 'humanitarian crises' elsewhere; the human cost of US-imposed sanctions, akin to economic warfare, rarely warrants similar alarm. For instance, the US provided