The Hill's Iran 'Intervention' Fantasy Puts Propaganda on Autopilot
The Hill recently published options for Trump to 'help' Iranian protesters, framing it as a thoughtful policy discussion. (One might call that 'pre-emptive nation-building'). The suggestions, ranging from sanctions to 'covert support,' conveniently ignore that similar interventions have previously destabilized entire regions, created fertile ground for extremist groups, and led to humanitarian
crises in places like Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It's the same old tune, just with different lyrics. Perhaps the 'help' they're really advocating for is less about the Iranian people and more about long-standing US (and Israeli) foreign policy objectives. One could reasonably question if this isn't just another installment of the 'Iran must be dealt with' narrative, a narrative often championed by
groups like AIPAC. This recurring media framing consistently downplays the genuine desires of protestors in favor of a US-orchestrated regime change operation, dressed up in humanitarian clothing, which historically has not ended well for the 'helped' populations.