The White House cites Iran’s nuclear capabilities — while maintaining their nuclear facilities were “obliterated.”
Cover: Sleepy Donnie in the Big Chair, plum tuckered out after waving the Big Stick at heathens and the communist infidel
The Trump administration is reportedly on the verge of attacking Iran in order to force Islamic Republic officials to agree to President Donald Trump’s demands for a nuclear deal, and to potentially push for regime change, which could spark a disastrous, protracted war.
U.S. officials have provided no evidence for an imminent threat — the only legal justification for the use of military force under international law — from Iran.
In the past few weeks, the U.S. has built up a military force likened to that of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The Pentagon has sent two aircraft carriers – including the world’s largest warship, the USS Gerald R. Ford – to the Mediterranean in preparation for the attack, alongside an arsenal of more than 120 aircraft, drones, and combat ships.
Trump told reporters on Friday that he is considering a supposedly limited strike to coerce Iranian officials into agreeing to a nuclear deal. “I guess I can say I am considering that,” he said.
Reports citing those familiar with the administration’s talks have found that the U.S. is prepared to carry out a strike as early as this weekend, and that the limited strike scenario would come within the next few days.
Trump said this week that he’s giving Iran 10 to 15 days to strike a deal. However, Trump had given Iran a two-week deadline to strike a deal last June, just days before the administration struck nuclear facilities in Iran and killed over 1,000 people, including hundreds of civilians.
The rationale for striking Iran this time is even less clear. The White House is following a similar script as it did before the attack last year, banging the drum about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. But the current escalation comes as the Trump administration continues to insist that it has, in fact, already obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities — contradicting their own stated rationale for the war.
This contradiction was clearest on Wednesday, when Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said: “There’s many reasons and arguments that one could make for a strike against Iran. The president had a very successful operation as commander in chief with Operation Midnight Hammer … [which] totally obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
The White House still hosts a live webpage published following the strike last year that reads, “Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News.”
A quote from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on that page says: “Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons.”
The idea that the nuclear facilities were “obliterated” is untrue. Numerous experts have said that the nuclear program was likely set back by a few years, if not just a few months.
But, regardless of the facts, the Trump administration is seemingly claiming that the strikes are necessary to prevent Iran from making progress toward a nuclear weapon, while also saying that the military already completely destroyed their ability last year to make a nuclear weapon.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Friday in an interview with MS NOW that the U.S.’s negotiators, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have actually not demanded zero uranium enrichment at all.
“We have not offered any suspension and the U.S. side has not asked for zero enrichment,” said Araqchi. “What we are now talking about is how to make sure that Iran’s nuclear program, including enrichment, is peaceful and would remain peaceful forever.”
And yet, the White House has repeatedly said that Trump seeks to end all of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, with Trump saying that “bad things will happen” if the country doesn’t.
It is illegal under the UN charter to threaten the use of force to achieve diplomatic goals.
”The president has been clear that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons or the capacity to build them, and that they cannot enrich uranium,” the White House said in response to Araqchi’s comments.
Trump said last weekend that regime change is “the best thing that could happen” in Iran, but the negotiations between the two countries have seemingly not included talks regarding the recent protests.
Reuters reported Friday that the U.S. has planned for options including an operation for regime change, with the military “preparing for a sustained, weeks-long operation against Iran that could include striking Iranian security facilities as well as nuclear infrastructure.”
Despite the similarities in the buildup of military force, the current circumstances stand in sharp contrast to the lead up to the Iraq War.
Before the invasion, the Bush administration made up fantastical lies about Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction,” flooding media outlets with claims that Iraq had the capability to unleash terror on the U.S. at any moment.
“The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons, for over a decade,” President George W. Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union address. According to Pew, following that address, 77 percent of Americans said that the U.S. should use military force if Iraq was shown to be developing such a weapon.
Perhaps as a result of the contradictory messaging from the Trump administration and the public’s memory of the disastrous consequences of the 2003 Iraq invasion, by comparison, the prospect of war with Iran is extremely unpopular. Last month, Quinnipiac found that only 18 percent of registered U.S. voters say the U.S. should take military action against Iran for its brutal repression of protesters, while 70 percent were opposed.
Discover more from Class Autonomy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
