Ali Velshi on Saturday posited that the current conflict
between the U.S. and Iran is driven by "incompatible origins of
war"— which I suspect is one hundred percent spot on. According to Velshi,
the U.S. and Iran hold deeply incompatible, historically rooted views on the
origins of their conflict, making it difficult to reach a resolution. The core
issue is that both sides remember and interpret the same history in vastly
different ways.
Thus, the U.S. is convinced the prolonged conflict began with
the hostage crisis in 1979 when American hostages suffered 444 days of confinement
by radical Islamists under the Ayatollah Khomeini. However, as Velshi observed
Iran points back to the 1953 CIA-backed coup that overthrew
the democratically- elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Since then, Iran has justifiably seen the
U.S. as an "oppressive exploiter”
Especially of its oil, given the CIA was given the go-ahead after Mossadegh
nationalized the country’s oil reserves.
Confirming the worst fears of many Iranians that the U.S. is
the aggressor, on July 3, 1988, the U.S. Navy guided-missile cruiser USS
Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, a civilian Airbus A300, over
the Persian Gulf. The incident resulted in the deaths of all 290 people on
board, including 66 children. The U.S.
called it a “mistake”, Iran wasn’t buying.
Just as many of us in the U.S. now aren’t biting Trump’s
bollocks that these attacks on Iran were warranted. Oh no, they were not. Trump
agreed to them under Israeli and Saudi pressure, as well as providing further
distraction from the Epstein files. Especially since Trump was named by one
survivor – in a 2019 FBI interview – as a perpetrator. Who sexually abused the woman
when she was 13 and then struck her physically, see e.g.
DOJ
removed, withheld Epstein files related to accusations about Trump : NPR
Velshi posits the idea that because the two nations cannot
agree on how their animosity began, they cannot agree on how to end it.
Velshi lastly suggested that this war serves a
"redemptive" purpose for the current administration, framing it more
as an act of domestic consolidation and "power through
spectacle" rather than a strategic necessity for national defense. He
warns that while the U.S. can dismantle Iran’s conventional military
capabilities, the internal political fracture within the U.S. remains the more
consequential "battlefield
In summary, Velshi’s coherent proposal contains these key
elements, regarding an ongoing U.S. -Iran conflict.
- Incompatible
Origins: Velshi highlights that when nations
cannot agree on how a conflict began, they cannot agree on how it ends.
- Iranian
Perspective: Iran views the animosity as stemming
from the "natural and unavoidable conflict" between its Islamic
system and an "oppressive" United States, which it sees as a
power seeking global dominance. This perspective is often framed around
historical U.S. interventions, such as the 1953 coup, and continued
economic/military pressure.
- U.S. Perspective: The U.S. has historically framed the conflict around Iranian aggression, such as the 1979 hostage crisis, regional proxy actions, and nuclear ambitions, which it deems a threat to allies.
- 2026
Context: Recent analysis by Velshi in February
2026 notes that this conflict has escalated into direct military actions
(such as joint U.S.-Israel strikes on Iranian sites), fueled by a desire
for "domestic consolidation" and "symbolic order"
rather than traditional defense.
Ultimately, Velshi suggests that this fundamental disagreement
over the "starting point" of the war prevents a diplomatic solution,
resulting in a persistent state of, or brink-of, war.
This could end IF the U.S. (certainly not under Trump) could finally admit it opened the path to permanent conflict by overturning a once vibrant democratic nation.
See Also:
A Nation Led By Warmongers- Will We Now Prove It (Again)After The Iran Missile 'Show' Attack?
And:
by Pierre Tristam | March 2, 2026 - 6:40am | permalink
We are most of us in this city of plump and smug geezers not so old as to forget how in 1990, in 1999 and again in 2001, 2002 and 2003, every time our country wanted to rattle sabers and ejaculate buckets of brawn in Kuwait, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress and our streets were in convulsions of should-we, should-we-not. We debated, we shouted and shrilled, and eventually Congress would vote—wrongly most of the time, illegally some of the time, brazenly defying international law and facts on the ground almost all of the time. Remember Colin Powell lying like Bush’s bitch at the UN about those imaginary WMDs, and the weasel of mass destruction himself declaring Mission Accomplished aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln months later, before causing 300,000 deaths in the losing war he unleashed?
But at least we went through the motions. At least we debated. At least the president had to make his case, not just to the American people but to the world. At least Congress voted after going through the pretenses of deliberations, the way the Roman Senate pretended to an illusion of democracy even as Caesar and the moribund Republic he put out of its misery bled to death. At least we got a cool play and a few good quotes out of it.
And:
by Alex Henderson | March 2, 2026 - 6:32am | permalink
When former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) announced that she was resigning from Congress, she wasn't shy about expressing her disappointment with President Donald Trump — who, in her view, has betrayed his America First agenda with an aggressively interventionist foreign policy. Now, the MAGA Republican and former Trump ally is vehemently criticizing Trump's military strikes against Iran. And she isn't the only person in the MAGA movement who wants Trump to stay out of that country.
Washington Post reporters Emily Davies and Hannah Knowles, in an article published on March 1, explain, "President Donald Trump's major attack on Iran has rattled parts of the coalition that twice delivered him the White House, a fracture that could spell trouble for a divided GOP as the midterm elections approach. The strikes, which killed Iran's supreme leader, followed a visible buildup of U.S. forces in the Middle East. But Trump's decision to carry them out nonetheless surprised some of his supporters, who had expected the self-described anti-interventionist president to stop short of a direct attack."
And:
by Trita Parsi | March 2, 2026 - 6:22am | permalink
Now that President Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off-ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?
There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.
This has been very clear in internal conversations: no one wants to take responsibility for the aftermath. This is essentially the difference between regime change and regime collapse.
That’s why they didn’t want to do an Iraq War-style regime change where you are actively trying to install a new government. If you do that, its track record becomes your track record.
And:
by Harvey Wasserman | March 2, 2026 - 5:45am | permalink
Trump’s latest attack on Iran primarily means to shred the last lines of American democracy and enthrone Trump as forever warlord/dictator.
Formally known as “Operation Epic Fury,” it’s really “Operation Epstein Desperation.”
Here are a baker’s dozen of its many pillars:
1. THE EPSTEIN BOMB: The Epstein/FBI files may definitively confirm that Trump has indeed abused underage women. At least one Trump victim may be set to testify. Bill Clinton’s appearance before Congress erased any alleged barrier against ex-Presidents testifying in a public hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment