By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump issued new threats of escalated strikes on Iran and its infrastructure if it does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz by a Tuesday deadline. These threats follow the rescue of a U.S. aviator whose plane was shot down by Iran, with both sides exchanging conflicting accounts of the incident. In response, Iran has targeted infrastructure in neighboring Gulf Arab countries, and both nations have struck civilian targets, drawing warnings of potential war crimes. Diplomatic efforts continue, with Oman, Egypt, and Pakistan involved in mediation to de-escalate the conflict.
Read the original article here
The suggestion that civilian infrastructure would be targeted if Iran doesn’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz is a deeply concerning prospect, raising immediate questions about international law, ethics, and the very definition of warfare. This isn’t a diplomatic negotiation; it appears to be a display of aggressive rhetoric, bordering on what many would consider narcissistic rage. When faced with significant challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the approach taken seemed to involve promoting conspiracy theories and undermining scientific consensus rather than confronting issues directly. Now, the focus has shifted to Iran, with a clear attempt to exert pressure and demand compliance.
Iran’s response, and its ability to stand firm, is framed by some as a strategic move that makes the other party appear weakened. The ruling class in Iran is reportedly convinced they are fighting for their very existence, and in many ways, this perspective holds weight. Their actions, in turn, seem to have caught the other side off guard, causing them to look less than authoritative. For someone with narcissistic tendencies, being perceived as weak is apparently worse than anything else, even death.
This perceived weakness is leading to a growing sense of desperation and anger. The inability to force Iran to yield and give in to demands is fueling an escalating emotional response. It’s highly suspected that a drastic action is imminent, a move aimed at securing a win at all costs, even if it means defying the counsel of military leadership. Many in the Pentagon are thought to believe these actions are ill-advised, which could explain the departure of several key figures. The potential consequences are dire, ranging from increased military deployment on the ground to the deliberate destruction of essential facilities like desalination plants, or even more extreme measures.
The mainstream media’s portrayal of this situation, with pronouncements like “Trump sets Tuesday deadline for Iran,” is seen by some as a failure to report the gravity of the threatened war crimes. Instead of dissecting the sheer recklessness of the pronouncements, the focus is on the superficial deadline. This is compounded by the view that internal dissent is being silenced, with individuals who might oppose such aggressive tactics being removed. The behavior described is likened to a rabid dog, willing to do the unthinkable to achieve its objectives, promising death and destruction for everyone involved.
There’s a clear word for targeting civilians for political gain: terrorism. The idea that such threats are being made, particularly in conjunction with any religious or political slogans, is jarring and unexpected for many observers. It stands in stark contrast to spending quiet moments of reflection and instead involves threatening war crimes against a distant population. This is particularly troubling when previous justifications for conflict involved Iran’s alleged mistreatment of its own civilians. Now, the very act being contemplated is the bombing of innocent civilians.
This approach leads to the assertion that the individual issuing these threats is a terrorist, and by extension, the military is being turned into a terrorist organization. For those who value constitutional principles or ethical theories of just war, continuing to support such an administration or even the troops engaged in such actions becomes untenable. The absurdity of the situation is highlighted by the imagined response from Iran, perhaps a catchy rap video, in the face of such serious threats.
The pronouncements are seen as a deliberate attempt to reframe reality, a form of “sanity washing.” The idea is that by declaring oneself a “warcriminal” with impunity, one is attempting to normalize or accept the actions. The underlying motivation is often interpreted as a desperate need to manipulate the stock market for personal gain, by forcing a deal that benefits specific economic interests, even if it means committing war crimes. This economic dimension is significant, as the instability created by such threats can have far-reaching consequences for global markets.
The disconnect between the capabilities of the US and the actions being threatened is also noted; the US doesn’t even heavily rely on the Strait of Hormuz, making the threat seem even more perplexing. Some express frustration that Congress isn’t intervening more forcefully, suggesting emergency sessions and invoking constitutional mechanisms to address the situation. The notion of “war crimes” is repeatedly invoked, with the implication that jail time would be a fitting consequence, even without the direct targeting of civilians.
The future is viewed with a sense of dread, with dark predictions about “War Crimes Day.” The urgency to remove the individual from power is palpable, with calls for immediate action from Congress. The accusation is that the leader is using service members, those previously called “suckers and losers,” to carry out illegal and unwanted wars, alienating allies and losing public support. The economic strain of these actions is also a significant concern, with projections of soaring gas prices and damage to the nation’s financial stability.
The contrast between the sacrifices of working-class soldiers and the perceived failures of civilian leadership is stark. The claim that Republicans truly support the troops is challenged, with the argument that their support is primarily for the profits of the military-industrial complex and endless warfare. The current situation is described as a tantrum born from a self-created mess, with Iran reacting predictably and the leadership unable to manage the consequences.
The rhetoric is seen as pushing populations back towards the very regimes being targeted, demonstrating that the US, under this leadership, has little to offer but pain and death. The withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal is highlighted as a crucial misstep, leading to a loss of oversight and increased risk of escalation. The underlying triggers for this escalation are speculated to be something far more damaging than starting a major war, even if it involves the release of sensitive files. The Iranian government, meanwhile, remains unchanged, leading to questions about the efficacy and sanity of the actions being contemplated.
The involvement of key figures within the administration is also questioned, with speculation about their personal feelings of embarrassment or regret. The idea of someone with impaired mental faculties being in charge is a recurring theme, leading to the perception of lawlessness and potential disregard for international justice, with the International Criminal Court being mentioned as a potential recourse. The “war crime” is seen as an indelible stain that will damage the nation’s reputation, both domestically and internationally.
The notion that the leader is acting out of desperation, knowing they may not face the consequences, is also put forth. The closing of the strait, seemingly being used as leverage, is highlighted as a point of absurdity. The failure to consider the international backlash that would follow targeting civilian infrastructure is also pointed out, as the world is watching and ready to document such actions. The idea of “just following orders” is explicitly dismissed as a defense for illegal acts, emphasizing the personal responsibility of each service member.
The potential for Iran to retaliate against American cities is a significant concern, framing the situation as a dangerous escalation. The critique extends to the inability of the US to fix its own infrastructure while contemplating the destruction of others. The “Praise Allah… Praise Jesus” juxtaposition is seen as a manipulative marketing ploy, designed to appeal to diverse audiences for political gain. The repeated “warnings” and the classification of these threats as terrorism are central to the critique.