Today marks the tenth day of the war declared by the United
States and Israel against Iran. There are no signs of it slowing down. If
anything, the rhetoric from Washington appears to grow louder by the day, with
Donald Trump repeatedly boasting that Iran’s military capability has been
“totally decimated.”
War always comes with a terrible price. Human lives are
lost, cities are reduced to rubble, and billions of dollars are spent on
destruction. It is difficult not to reflect on the tragic irony of such
conflicts: while vast sums are poured into weapons and bombs, millions around
the world struggle simply to obtain a decent meal.
Let me be clear from the outset. I am not mourning the loss
of Iran’s ruling elite. For decades the country has been ruled by authoritarian
leaders who suppressed dissent and imposed severe restrictions on their own
people—especially women. Their rule has often been harsh and oppressive. Few
would argue that the Iranian people deserved better. But I will mourn the loss
of innocent lives many of whom would have been the people protesting against
the Iranian regime over the past few months. To the USA and Israel only the
loss of its own citizens is a cause for grief. The value of lives of the
countries they are attacking is negligible to them. Six US soldiers killed in
battle vs up to 1300 Iranian civilians murdered by indiscriminatory airstrikes!
The current war is not about freeing the Iranian people.
Neither the United States nor Israel can plausibly claim altruism as their
guiding motive. History has shown that whenever Washington has intervened
militarily in another nation in the name of “freedom,” the aftermath has often
been chaotic and devastating. The examples of the Iraq War and the War in
Afghanistan serve as sobering reminders of how such interventions can leave
countries in worse condition than before.
Many observers assume that the current conflict is primarily
about oil. While energy resources certainly play a role, the deeper motive may
lie in something far larger.
Another justification often presented for attacking Iran is
its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. Yet this argument raises serious
questions. The United States itself is a nuclear power, as is Israel. Although
Israel maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity—neither confirming nor denying
possession of nuclear weapons—most international analysts believe it does
possess them.
Ironically, the United States remains the only country in
history to have actually used nuclear weapons in war, when it bombed Hiroshima
and Nagasaki during World War II.
Furthermore, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons
while allowing the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Israel, on the other hand,
has never signed the treaty. To many observers, this double standard appears
deeply contradictory. The hypocrisy, therefore, is difficult to ignore.
If the nuclear argument does not fully explain the conflict,
then the deeper motive may lie in something far larger: the struggle for global
dominance.
For more than eight decades, the United States has enjoyed
the status of the world’s pre-eminent superpower. After the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1991, that dominance appeared largely unchallenged. America led
the world in finance, military power, and technological innovation. Yet while
Washington grew comfortable in its position, another power was quietly rising.
Over the past two decades, Xi Jinping’s China has
transformed itself into a formidable global force. Its economy expanded
rapidly, its technological capabilities advanced dramatically, and its
influence spread across international markets and strategic regions. Today
China stands as the only country capable of seriously challenging American
economic and technological supremacy.
Alongside China stands another major geopolitical player:
Russia. Though economically smaller than both the United States and China,
Russia remains a formidable military power under the leadership of Vladimir
Putin and possesses one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals.
Both China and Russia view Iran as a strategically important
partner. China, for example, has become Iran’s largest oil customer, reportedly
purchasing the majority of the country’s exported crude. In 2021 the two
nations signed a long-term strategic partnership agreement covering energy
cooperation, infrastructure investment, and even military collaboration.
Russia’s relationship with Iran is equally significant. The
two countries have coordinated military operations in Syria and maintained
close defense ties for years. For Moscow, Iran represents a key foothold in the
Middle East and a partner in resisting Western influence.
From this perspective, Iran is far more than just another
country in conflict. It is a strategic pillar in the broader geopolitical
contest between the United States and its rivals. Recent events in Latin
America offer another example of this larger struggle.
Earlier this year, U.S. special forces captured Venezuelan
leader Nicolás Maduro and installed Delcy Rodríguez as the country’s acting
leader. Venezuela had long maintained close economic and strategic ties with
both China and Russia.
China had invested tens of billions of dollars in Venezuela
through loans, infrastructure projects, and oil supply agreements. Russia
similarly developed extensive cooperation with the country’s energy sector. Following
the leadership change, however, Washington began encouraging Venezuela to shift
its economic partnerships toward Western investors.
This move threatens both Chinese and Russian interests in
one of the world’s largest oil-producing nations. Seen together, these
developments suggest a broader strategy. By reshaping political alignments in
both Venezuela and Iran—two major energy producers—the United States may be
attempting to limit the economic and strategic reach of its principal rivals.
If that interpretation is correct, the current conflicts are
not isolated events but part of a much larger geopolitical contest. In that
contest, nations like Iran and Venezuela become pieces on a global
chessboard—valuable not only for their resources but for their strategic
positions in the balance of power.
And once again, it is ordinary people who pay the heaviest
price.
But this time the United States and Israel may have bitten
off more than they can chew. Over the past few decades the United States has
found relatively easier victories against countries such as Iraq and even
Afghanistan, largely because of its vast military superiority. Yet it is possible
that Washington has underestimated Iran’s capabilities and its capacity to
fight back.
One is reminded of Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. In
the story, Gulliver travels to an island called Lilliput where the inhabitants
are only a few inches tall. To them Gulliver appears like a giant. When
conflict breaks out, the tiny inhabitants attack him with countless small
arrows that prick his skin. In this analogy Iran may appear to some as the
small island of Lilliput—but with one crucial difference: its arrows are far
from tiny, and they have done more than merely prick the combined might of the
United States and Israel. Over the past ten days there has been immense death
and destruction in Iran, including the tragic and horrific attack on a school
that reportedly killed 165 children.
At the same time, Iran has struck back ferociously. Using
relatively inexpensive armed drones, it has reportedly caused significant
damage to U.S. airbases in the Gulf region and even damaged anti-ballistic
defense systems. There are also reports that Israeli cities have suffered
extensive damage. However, due to strict wartime information controls and
restrictions on reporting, many of these claims remain difficult to
independently verify.
At one time America truly was a great country—perhaps the
greatest.
People across the world dreamed of migrating to the United
States not only for economic opportunity but for the promise of democracy and
freedom.
But earlier American leaders were also seen as morally
strong figures. Presidents such as John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard
Nixon, and Ronald Reagan were leaders whom many Americans looked up to.
Today, however, in Donald Trump the world is dealing with a
president whom many critics see as behaving more like a schoolyard
bully—morally questionable and dangerously power-hungry. His tariff policies
have disrupted the global economy, even affecting friendly countries. His
immigration policies have created fear and uncertainty for many families who
once saw America as a land of hope. The country that once symbolized freedom
for migrants increasingly appears to many as a place of anxiety and division. While the country's soldiers fight a war laying down their lives as well as taking life this repugnant narcissistic poor excuse for a human being is merrily practising his swings on the Golf course. 😡
Kidnapping an elected president such as Nicolás Maduro,
attacking Iran while negotiations were underway, and threatening countries like
Spain over military cooperation are cited by critics as examples of this
confrontational approach to global politics.
I sincerely hope that leaders everywhere remember that power
carries responsibility. The world cannot afford a global order driven solely by
ego, dominance, and the pursuit of power. If that happens, it will not just
damage America’s reputation—it will damage the very ideals that once made the
country admired around the world.
Comments
Post a Comment