US Threatens Iraq Over Democratic Choice, Again
📰 THE STORY: Mainstream media, like The Hill, frames former President Trump's threats to withdraw US support from Iraq if they elect a prime minister not to Washington's liking as a legitimate foreign policy stance. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: This isn't just about Trump. The US has a long, violent history of dictating Iraq's leadership. The 2003 invasion, justified by
fabricated WMD claims, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destabilized the entire region, creating the vacuum for ISIS. Before that, the US armed Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) while simultaneously imposing crippling sanctions, only to later depose him. This pattern of 'support' used as leverage for regime change has been constant. Double Standard:
Imagine if Russia or China threatened to cut aid to, say, France, because Parisians elected a leader they didn't approve of. Western media would decry it as blatant interference in sovereign elections, a violation of international law. Yet, when the US does it to Iraq, it's reported as a 'threat' or 'policy' but rarely as the imperialist strong-arming that it is. The 'rule of law' applies
selectively. Follow the Money: US 'support' often comes with strings attached, primarily benefiting the US military-industrial complex and ensuring geopolitical advantage. Billions in 'aid' to Iraq frequently cycles back to US contractors and arms manufacturers. It's not selfless generosity; it's an investment in a compliant client state and a strategic outpost in West Asia, securing oil interests