US Decries Iranian Protests, Forgets Its Own 'Protests'
A recent Al Jazeera piece outlines Trump's threats against Iran, vowing US intervention if Tehran 'violently suppresses protests over high prices' (Al Jazeera, 2026). This conveniently omits the US government's own record: from violently suppressing Standing Rock water protectors using militarized police to the recent history of brutal crackdowns on Black Lives Matter demonstrations. Trump
himself, during his presidency, deployed federal agents against peaceful protestors in Portland and Lafayette Square, authorizing tear gas and rubber bullets. The idea that Washington suddenly champions the right to protest (even if genuine) in other nations while crushing it at home is not just ironic, it's a playbook for destabilizing adversaries. One might wonder if the concern is truly for the
Iranian people, or if it's merely a convenient pretext for 'intervention' – a word that, in the US foreign policy lexicon, rarely means peaceful resolution. How many times have we seen alleged humanitarian concern morph into military entanglement, benefiting defense contractors and geopolitical chess players, never the 'liberated' populace? It appears some protests are more 'democratic' than
others, depending on who's holding the signs, and whose oil fields are at stake.