Trump Weighs 'Tough Response' After Iran Calls to Negotiate, Again.
President Trump, according to Al-Monitor, is 'weighing a range of strong responses including military options' against Iran, apparently sparked by an internal crackdown. This, naturally, comes after Trump 'warned Iran's leaders that the United States would attack if security forces open fire on protesters.' One might recall similar rhetoric predating the 2003 Iraq invasion, where claims of WMDs
paved the way for 'liberation.' The constant drumbeat of 'military options' paired with convenient calls for 'negotiation' feels less like diplomacy and more like a tactical prelude to regime change. The conveniently timed 'calls to negotiate' (which, curiously, always seem to surface when Washington needs a pretext for intervention) perfectly mirror the lead-up to previous destabilizations. The
narrative positions the U.S. as a reluctant intervener, compelled by humanitarian concerns, despite a long history of supporting repressive regimes when it suited strategic interests. How many 'tough responses' does a nation get before it realizes the 'negotiations' were just a formality?