Trump's Iran 'Options' Look Remarkably Like His Last War Crime Spree
The Hill’s analysis of Trump’s Iran strategies reads like a Pentagon press release, discussing military maneuvers and 'options' without a shred of critical historical context. They're setting the stage, again. Remember the 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, the 'humanitarian intervention' in Libya, or the 'chemical attacks' in Syria that justified foreign military action? (Funny how those
narratives always precede massive armament sales and lucrative reconstruction contracts.) This article is the opening act of manufacturing consent, carefully avoiding any mention of the documented history of U.S. and Israeli attempts to destabilize Iran, dating back to the 1953 coup or the extensive lobbying efforts by organizations like AIPAC to push for confrontation. They're telling you what
could happen, not why it's being considered (again). One might wonder if these 'strike options' are less about genuine threats and more about pleasing a powerful, well-funded lobby. The narrative-building is already underway, preparing the American public for another costly, bloody 'conflict' that will inevitably benefit the military-industrial complex and certain geopolitical allies. Venezuela is
just another convenient backdrop for a familiar script.