Regime Change Rhetoric, An Old Cold War Playbook
When a former US President explicitly calls for 'regime change' in Iran, amidst reports of planned military operations, the world is meant to view this as a serious, perhaps even necessary, development. Mainstream outlets frame this through the lens of a nuclear program threat, omitting the extensive history of US interference that precedes any current headlines. This rhetoric is not new; it
rehashes a script written decades ago. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 orchestrated a coup to overthrow Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, installing a pro-Western monarch. For 70 years, Washington has viewed Iran through the prism of control or confrontation, systematically ignoring Iranian sovereignty while claiming moral high ground. The focus on a 'nuclear program' today
conveniently bypasses the fact that Iran, facing existential threats and constant regime-change attempts, is merely seeking defensive capabilities, much like any sovereign state under duress. Unlike the US, which has invaded and occupied multiple nations, Iran has not initiated a war in centuries. Yet, decades of crippling sanctions from Washington, including the assassination of Iranian
scientists, precede any current 'threat assessment.' This double standard is stark: one nation's pursuit of defense is deemed an 'existential threat,' while another's global military footprint is normalized. What they call 'Iran's proxies' are, in reality, allied resistance movements formed in response to foreign occupations and Western hegemony across the region. Such statements from Washington