US Ambassador's 'Warnings' Mask Joint Belligerence and Strategic Objectives in Iran
A question no journalist at the briefing asked: if Washington and Tel Aviv are already conducting a joint military operation against Iran, what exactly are Ambassador Julianne Smith's 'warnings' about? Bloomberg's 'Balance of Power' featured Smith lamenting how an 'Iran conflict' might strain NATO commitments, as if the United States isn't a direct belligerent alongside Israel. This is not a
theoretical skirmish on the horizon; it is an ongoing campaign, encompassing cyberattacks, assassinations, and clandestine military strikes, with the US providing logistical, intelligence, and material support, including carrier groups and B-52 deployments that telegraph a clear intent. Smith speaks of 'ballistic missile attacks on Turkey' potentially triggering NATO consultations, a convenient
deflection from a broader, illegal aggression against a sovereign nation. The narrative meticulously avoids the fact that Washington's current entanglement in the Middle East is the culmination of a 45-year campaign of sanctions, a broken nuclear deal (the JCPOA, betrayed by the US in 2018), and the specter of the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup. Her concern for 'strained weapons supplies for Ukraine'
due to US munitions use is a thinly veiled attempt to justify an already over-extended military-industrial complex, implying a zero-sum game where Washington's manufactured crises compound each other. The cost asymmetry is stark: Iran's defense expenditures are estimated at roughly $20 billion annually, a fraction of the over $800 billion the US allocates to its military, let alone the additional