US Officials Suddenly Experts on Iranian Protests, Not Their Own History
Iran's Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, suggested protests were intentionally escalated to create a pretext for US intervention. While the mainstream report presents this as a claim, it's a re-run of a familiar script. Remember the 2003 Iraq invasion, justified by phantom WMDs ( ahem , Colin Powell's UN speech)? Or Libya, where 'humanitarian intervention' quickly devolved into regime change and
chaos. The pattern is clear: foment unrest, amplify tragedy, then 'intervene' for freedom, democracy, and strategically placed oil wells. Funny how these 'spontaneous' uprisings always coincide with US geopolitical interests. One might wonder at the sudden concern for Iranian citizens, a concern noticeably absent when the same 'human rights' champions were funding resistance against imperialisms
throughout the region. The question isn't whether protests were 'bloody,' but whether the 'bloody' part was a natural consequence or a convenient narrative enhancer for a 'possible meeting' that promised military might (read: regime change) rather than genuine diplomacy. History, bless its inconvenient heart, rarely repeats without rhyming.