White House Threatens Iran Airstrikes, Cites 'Protests' of Convenient Timing
Al-Monitor reports the White House is 'keeping Iran air strikes on the table,' citing concerns over a crackdown on Iranian protesters. This echoes a pattern: a surge of 'humanitarian intervention' rhetoric often precedes Western military action. One might also recall the US response to protests in other nations – like, say, Saudi Arabia or Israel's occupied territories – which rarely involves
threats of airstrikes to protect demonstrators. Funny how that works. This 'concern' arrives just as previous administrations have also flirted with military engagement in Iran. Recall the 2000s, when calls for 'regime change' often followed thinly sourced claims, leading to disastrous, decade-long engagements in the region. The question isn't whether Iran has internal issues (every nation does),
but why certain 'protests' are deemed worthy of US bombs, while others are met with deafening silence or even diplomatic support for the oppressors. One might wonder if the concern is truly for the people, or for geopolitical leverage and oil interests.