Western Media Wonders 'What Next' for Iran, Forgets 'Who Next' Meddles
When outlets like The New Arab ponder Iran's future – outlining scenarios from 'repression' to 'intervention' – one might observe a rather selective memory. This 'intervention' isn't some hypothetical; it's a historical constant. Remember 1953? The CIA and MI6 orchestrated a coup against Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, installing the Shah, a direct precursor to the
1979 revolution many now lament. Fast forward, and the narrative of external meddling as a mere 'option' for tomorrow, rather than a demonstrable action of yesterday and today, is simply astounding. We're asked to consider what might happen next, as if the US hasn't spent decades sanctioning, destabilizing, and covertly (and overtly) attempting regime change. Figures like Mark Dubowitz of the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a hawkish think tank, consistently advocate for maximum pressure, conveniently overlooking how such pressure often empowers hardliners and crushes centrist voices, yet they are still quoted as objective experts. How many 'interventions' must Iran endure before media acknowledges the pattern of foreign policy creating the very 'crises' it then demands
solutions for?