Craig Murray posted an article today about rational or deep state aligned justifications for the USA attacking Iran. He’s a left-y former British diplomat who you may remember from covering the ICJ hearing for South Africa’s case against “israel”. The article is definitely on the side that the attack was planned out for American hegemony, and the political spin can be explained by the famous American disdain for informing the public. i am personally skeptical of this view, but given the fog of war it’s impossible to fully discount it at this time.
i think the parts about Iranian capabilities deteriorating over time and USAmerica manifesting more interceptors are overblown. Enough articles have been posted here that i can say the limiting factor on building more interceptors is rocket motors and ammonium perchlorate, not funding or orders given to Lockheed. What’s more, those motors and chemicals are made by other companies anyways. That said, if we set aside the engineering and remember that Mr. Murray has experience in a different field, i think his article probably represents a real strain of thought within the USA. Though maybe not Trump’s thought per se. Someone here said that there have been many presidents evil enough to invade Iran, but this is the first one stupid enough to follow through. i think that’s probably correct, but there have been plans to avenge 1979 floating around Washington for a while.
The Center for a New American Century folks and other neocons have long argued that the USA can maintain its position as a global hegemon exactly insofar as it keeps all the other regional powers from controlling their regions. Traditionally, this is Russia over Europe, China over east Asia, Iran over west Asia, and the USA over the Americas. Many of Trump’s foreign policy choices can be seen through this lens. i think the most important point Murray makes is that the goal of at least some of these people is to turn Iran into a failed state. Some news mega commentators have also talked about the goal to reduce Iran down to feuding subentities fighting over water. The idea that the the main impact on USAmerican energy will be on pricing rather than supply would fit in with this nicely. Sure, oil might be $200 a barrel, but that’s nothing but good news for oil companies anyhow. Higher prices just means more money, and instability in other oil producing regions incentivizes investment in the US. Meanwhile, the energy and agricultural flows of Eurasia and the Indian Ocean might be shattered. It’s a very cruel and stupid idea, but creating a socio-economic firestorm at the doorstep of your three biggest enemies and hoping the flames don’t get you is an almost stereotypical CIA/ US intelligence plan.
Her name was Lilly.