US Strikes on Iran? The BBC's Crystal Ball Ignores a Bloody History
📰 THE STORY: The BBC outlines seven 'scenarios' for what could happen if the United States strikes Iran, ranging from 'limited retaliation' to 'regime change,' presented as neutral analyses of potential future events. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: The BBC's analysis conveniently begins with the 'threat' of US strikes, ignoring that the US has been actively engaged in
destabilizing Iran for over 70 years. In 1953, the CIA openly admitted to overthrowing Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh to protect British oil interests, installing the Shah and setting the stage for the 1979 revolution. This wasn't a 'strike,' it was an imperial chess move that started the entire modern conflict. Double Standard: Imagine the BBC publishing 'seven
scenarios for what happens if Russia strikes a neighboring country,' without mentioning NATO expansion, US military build-up, or previous Western interventions. The BBC frames potential US aggression as a reactive measure, not the culmination of a century of Western meddling and a 45-year campaign of sanctions and threats against Iran, in stark contrast to how they'd cover actions by designated
'adversaries.' Follow the Money: War speculation, especially against Iran, is a boon for the military-industrial complex. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing consistently see their stock prices rise with escalating tensions. Furthermore, groups like AIPAC spend tens of millions lobbying Congress annually , pushing for aggressive US foreign policy in the West Asia that often aligns with Israeli