Iran Playing with Fire?

Hostile White House rhetoric against nonbelligerent Iran continues menacingly.

It should terrify everyone for pushing things toward possible war on the country, a nation of 81 million people, second in regional population size to Egypt, armed with sophisticated weapons able to hit back hard if attacked. 

Trump regime hardliners Bolton and Pompeo want war on the country, pushing Trump in this direction.

He’s manipulated by hardliners in charge of his geopolitical agenda, including Pentagon hawks, somewhat restrained by their cooler head counterparts — knowing war on Iran would be a far greater undertaking than other nations the US attacked since Vietnam.

A similar quagmire could result, including body bags returning home, highlighted by media hostile to Trump, wanting him defeated in 2020.

At the same time, the fourth estate is militantly hostile toward Iran, on board for transforming the country into a US client state, wanting Israel’s main regional rival eliminated by restoring pro-Western fascist rule over Iranian sovereign independence.

The fullness of time will tell what’s coming. Will or won’t the Trump regime attack Iran preemptively?

If happens it’ll likely follow a significant false flag incident, most likely resulting in US casualties, the way to arouse public anger and enlist congressional support — the Islamic Republic wrongfully blamed for what it surely won’t have anything to do with.

Trump regime arrogance is breathtaking. A July 1 White House statement threatened Iran more than already.

It came in response to Tehran’s legal JCPOA right to increase its uranium enrichment beyond limits it voluntarily agreed to observe.

Foreign Minister Zarif said his nation “surpassed the 300kg (low-uranium enrichment) limit, and we had already announced” an intention to exceed it,” adding:

“(W)e have said very clearly what we are doing and consider this as part of our rights as per the JCPOA.”

He, President Rouhani, and other Iranian officials said uranium enrichment would increase because Britain, France, Germany, and the EU breached their JCPOA obligations.

If they fulfill them ahead, Iran will reduce the amount of uranium it enriches, so far not exceeding a 3.67 level, far below the 90% level required to produce nukes.

No evidence whatever suggests Iran wants to develop and produce these WMDs it considers hostile to Islam, wanting them eliminated everywhere.

Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball explained that no international standard prohibits Iran from enriching uranium, saying it “is not the case” that Tehran is in breach of its nuclear obligations. “That is the (unjustifiable) American position.”

The White House called it “a mistake under the Iran nuclear deal to allow Iran to enrich uranium at any level” — its legal right, the same as 31 other nations with nuclear reactors, and over 50 others with nuclear research reactors.

The White House claim that

“(t)here is little doubt that even before the deal’s existence, Iran was violating its terms” sounded like a nonsensical (GW) Bushism adding:

“We must restore the longstanding nonproliferation standard of no enrichment for Iran” — legal under Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and JCPOA.

“The United States and its allies will never allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons” it clearly doesn’t want.

At the same time, US officials ignore nuclear armed and dangerous Israel, also maintaining illegal stockpiles of chemical, biological and other banned weapons.

A same-day State Department disinformation statement was more hostile than the White House.

It falsely accused Iran of “tak(ing)  new steps to advance its nuclear (weapons) ambitions” — a bald-faced Big Lie.

Nor is the Islamic Republic the “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism (sic)…us(ing) its nuclear program to extort the international community and threaten regional security (sic)” — dubious distinctions applying to the US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial partners.

These nations “pose (the) great(est) danger to the region and to the world,” mainly because of Washington’s hegemonic rage to control all other nations, their resources and populations.

Wars of aggression against sovereign independent countries threatening no one is its longstanding favored strategy — military Keynesianism on steroids.

Throughout most of the post-WW II era, Washington’s permanent war agenda has been and remains official policy by both right wings of the one-party state.

The late Seymour Melman explained that “every major aspect of American life is being shaped by our Permanent War Economy.”

Its horrific toll includes aggressive prioritizing wars over essential homeland needs, thirdworldizing the nation at the same time.

Half or more of US households are poor, disadvantaged, uneducated, “disconnected from society’s mainstream, restless and unhappy, frustrated, angry, and sad,” Melman stressed.

“State Capitalism” reflects the American way, an insidious government/business partnership.

It features permanent wars, debauched leadership, lost industrialization, crumbling infrastructure, and deprived millions on their own, uncared for, unwanted, ignored, and forgotten to assure steady funding for America’s wars and corporate handouts at the expense of peace, equity and justice.

Things have been on an ominous trajectory toward possible US war on Iran since Trump illegally withdrew from the JCPOA, an international agreement, unanimously adopted by Security Council members, making it binding international law, requiring all nations to observe its provisions.

Trump accusing Iran of “playing with fire” sounds ominously like his earlier “fire and fury like the world has never seen” threat against North Korea.

There’s no way to know for sure what’s coming, but some signs give hope. Pompeo and Bolton haven’t swayed NATO nations to join a US coalition for war on Iran — except perhaps for Britain, joined at the hip with Washington for all its wars of aggression.

Most Dems, some Republicans, and cautious Pentagon commanders oppose attacking Iran. Future events could change things dramatically.

Pre-WW II, Congress and the US public overwhelmingly opposed US involvement in Europe’s war. Japan’s Pearl Harbor attack transformed national sentiment from pacifism to raging anger against Japan.

House and Senate members near-unanimously approved a declaration of war, one congressional member alone opposing it.

As the saying goes, the rest is history. The 9/11 mother of all false flags was a second Pearl Harbor. Will a third one launch war on Iran?

False flags are a longstanding US tradition since the mid-19th century. No matter how many times Americans are fooled, they’re easy marks to be duped again.

War on Iran would be disastrous for the country, region, and world peace — why it’s crucial for nations and activists against it to go all-out to prevent US aggression against another nonbelligerent nation, supporting the rule of law, threatening no one.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Visit his blog site at

Featured image is from Iranian Presidency/Anadolu Agency

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Articles by: Stephen Lendman

About the author:

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." Visit his blog site at Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]