By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump has announced the cancellation of all meetings with Iranian officials. This decision follows a violent crackdown on protestors, with Trump also expressing support for the Iranian people by stating that “help is on its way.” The President’s change of stance comes after previously indicating a willingness to negotiate. The White House is also considering options ranging from diplomacy to military action.
Read the original article here
Trump cancel meetings with Iranian officials and tells protesters “help is on its way,” and this has set off a flurry of reactions, to put it mildly. It’s the kind of announcement that immediately grabs your attention, especially when considering the context of escalating tensions and the history we have with Iran. You can’t help but wonder what exactly this “help” entails, and what it all means.
The situation in Iran is, without a doubt, a brutal one. The regime is actively suppressing and killing its own people, and from a moral standpoint, it’s difficult not to want to see those protestors supported. The argument for intervention, based purely on the humanitarian aspect, is a strong one. But, this isn’t that simple.
The complexities are unavoidable. Previous interventions, without thoughtful planning for the aftermath, have led to decades of conflict and instability. There’s a real fear that any action taken could make the situation drastically worse, creating even more suffering and unrest. And, let’s be honest, there is a distinct undercurrent of concern about the motives behind such actions, and the potential for these moves to legitimize further military interventions in the region.
Trump’s declaration specifically, “I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY,” feels jarring. There’s a clear sense of irony here, a disconnect between the stated support for Iranian protestors and the lack of similar support for those protesting in the U.S. It makes you question the real intentions behind the words, whether it’s genuine care for the Iranian people or something else entirely. It’s difficult not to be cynical.
The discussion surrounding Trump’s intentions is intense. Some believe this is nothing more than a play for power, a desire to be seen as the decisive leader, taking military action to “fix” a situation, regardless of the consequences. There is a sense of inevitability about the whole thing, as if a strike is guaranteed. And the question then becomes, what will be the extent of U.S. involvement?
The potential outcomes are staggering. A strategic strike could lead to a swift regime change, and with the potential fall of the current theocracy, one could argue, would be a positive step. But, then comes the aftermath. Civil war, the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, and potential retaliation are all very real possibilities. A scenario like that can change very quickly.
Then there is the issue of whether this is being orchestrated by those close to Trump, someone like Senator Rubio, to further certain political goals. It’s not clear what those goals might be. And it opens a further concern that his actions might be driven not by strategic thinking, but by the whims of those who have his ear at the moment.
Some suggest airdropping weapons to the protestors, and letting them clean up their own house. This, they argue, is a far cheaper solution than bombing infrastructure, which would only need to be rebuilt after any regime change.
Ultimately, Trump’s announcement is a moment where potential positives are overshadowed by the risks. There is a deeply felt sense that any intervention, regardless of the stated intention, could easily backfire and lead to greater instability, more suffering, and further entrenchment of conflict in the region.
The irony, the hypocrisy, and the history all create a feeling of weary anticipation. It’s a situation that has many people bracing themselves for the next move, whatever that may be. It’s enough to exhaust you.