US Considers 'Strong Options' for Iran, Forgetting Its Own 'Strong Options' History
When Washington talks 'strong options' for Iran, one might recall the 'strong options' that led to the 1953 coup against democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, installing the Shah, paving the way for the 1979 revolution, and decades of mutual animosity. Or perhaps the 'strong options' deployed against Iraq in 2003, based on intelligence that proved conveniently false, costing
trillions and untold lives. The narrative consistently frames Iranian dissent as a foreign policy opportunity to 'liberate' (read: destabilize) a nation, rather than acknowledging the complex, internal dynamics of citizen grievances. This convenient memory hole allows politicians like Trump to posture as saviors, while think tanks funded by defense contractors (who profit from 'strong options')
cheer from the sidelines. One might wonder if these 'options' are truly about the Iranian people, or about maintaining a familiar geopolitical chess board where US intervention is always the answer. (Spoiler: it usually isn't).