FLASH
Shkruar nga Davide Malacaria
The war with Iran was planned from the beginning...
"The conflict with Iran has entered a new, damaging phase: a paralyzing limbo between war and peace that leaves the Strait of Hormuz closed and the prospect of escalation looming." This is the statement of the Wall Street Journal, which warns of the dangers of the closure of the Strait, which due to the US blockade has caused new tightening of Tehran, which not only prolongs the deterioration of global markets, but also risks a new open conflict.
Indeed, the WSJ continues, " The battle for control of the Strait, one of the most important corridors of global trade, continues, keeping commodity market participants on high alert and helping to push international oil prices above $100 a barrel... neither Washington nor Tehran are easing tensions but rather testing the limits of restraint. As long as the dual blockade remains in place, any boarding of ships, any warning strike or seizure of vessels could become a trigger for a broader resumption of the conflict. "
Pakistan continues to weave a web of dialogue between Washington and Tehran, but complications remain, with Trump unable to find a way out of the tunnel he has dug himself into. For this to happen, he must secure something from Iran, a victory that Tehran is unwilling to accept. American demands have been significantly reduced after the strategic defeat, effectively reducing them to dismantling the nuclear program, which has become the only real focus of the dispute and to which Tehran has no intention of surrendering, reaffirming its right to nuclear energy for civilian use.
However, Trump is apparently softening, at least according to sources consulted by Michael Birnbaum, a Washington Post journalist, who reports in an article that he is aiming for an agreement similar to the one signed by Obama, that is, an agreement that would impose restrictions and controls on Iran's nuclear program, such as to make it impossible to produce a nuclear weapon.
Reporting on the new stance of the US administration, Birnbaum criticizes this determination, explaining that this contradicts Trump's previous statements, which sharply criticized Obama's agreement with Tehran, and that an agreement with Iran should not be sought under any circumstances, since, according to him, it is a criminal regime.
If we report what Birnbaum writes, this means emphasizing that a warmongering wave is rising in America, as demonstrated by the article published the same day, also in WP, by Marc Thiessen, who relaunches themes echoed in the main imperial media to hinder in every way the possibility of an agreement.
It is not Trump who wants war; it is the Empire, to which the president is called upon to obey. And those who act as spokesmen for imperial desires are not so much politicians, many of whom are surely assigned a role, as think tanks, the transmission belt that connects cultural power, in the broadest sense of the term, to real power (economic, financial, technological).
At this point, the title of an article in Responsible Statecraft is sufficient: “ Think War with Iran is a Disaster? Blame These Washington Think Tanks First .” The subtitle: “ We Asked Artificial Intelligence to Identify the Conflict’s Top Backers. Surprise: Many of Them Are Linked to Israel and Have Even Pushed for the Invasion of Iraq ” as early as 2003.
This latter dating is our specification, and it serves to highlight how this power has remained unchanged for a long time, pervasively influencing American politics. These think tanks are consulted by the media on current affairs, and their analysts explain world affairs through newspapers, television, and the Internet. Journalists for these media are also recruited from the same circles, creating a circular, all-encompassing, all-encompassing system that decisively influences the emperor of the moment, regardless of whether he is a Democrat or a Republican.
So much so, as Caitlin Johnstone notes, " even the Biden administration was preparing to bomb Iran if it won the 2024 election ." In fact, she reports below how, in a recent interview with former Biden adviser Amos Hochstein, journalist Margaret Brennan asked if a confrontation with Iran was "inevitable." After confirming that it was, Hochstein added: " We thought that spring or summer of 2025 would probably be the time when we would find ourselves in such a situation ." Thus, simulations were prepared of "how to proceed."
Nothing would have changed with Kamala Harris, who then emerged as the Democratic nominee to replace Biden, who said during the election campaign that America "will always give Israel the opportunity to defend itself, especially with regard to Iran and any threat that Iran and its allies pose to Israel ." This is Johnstone's conclusion: "The Democratic Party is simply the kinder face of the same evil power structure."
"The war with Iran was planned from the beginning... this war is more intended to attack the economic and energy interests of Russia and China, in a last-ditch effort to maintain global hegemony, than to help Israel. This puts the United States on a dangerous trajectory toward an increasingly bitter escalation between the nuclear powers. These moves were planned years ago and would have been implemented regardless of which incompetent meat puppet was brought to power in January 2025. "
Johnstone's analysis ignores the fact that a part of America and American power was against this development, otherwise they would not have tried to kill Trump, but lost; it also fails to acknowledge that Israel, and the madness that currently permeates it, is a key variable in its development, genocide is not necessary to confront Russia and China. Nevertheless, it remains an important analysis, because it describes a process that has already occurred and is still, in the current impasse, in progress. / Adapted "Pamphlet" from "InsideOver"
Lini një Përgjigje