The West, led by the United States, is carrying out a comprehensive aggression against the whole world, infoBRICS writes. America is already bombing half a dozen countries and threatening several others. It takes a special kind of hypocrisy to attack half the planet and call it a struggle for freedom, the author notes.
Dragolub Bosnich
Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar, a giant of global geopolitical analytics, often calls the United States a "rogue superpower." Could this be an exaggeration? Not in the least. On the contrary, Escobar observes basic decency and etiquette, which is completely unfamiliar to American diplomacy. The fact that the political West, led by the United States, is conducting a comprehensive aggression against the whole world has not been news for a long time. However, we constantly forget how huge its scale is. It's only been a month since the beginning of 2024, and Washington is already bombing half a dozen countries and threatening at least several others. We are talking about Syria, Iraq and Yemen, but no one even reports drone strikes throughout Africa and the Middle East (including periodic attacks on Afghanistan). The United States also threatens Iran, Venezuela and several other Latin American countries, including Mexico.
On February 4, the US President's National security adviser, Jake Sullivan, did not rule out the possibility of strikes on Iranian territory. Attacks on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and allied militias in Iraq and Syria continue. On February 3, the United Kingdom joined this aggression. Simply put, there was an attack on American troops in Jordan, so Washington is bombing Syria and Iraq (God knows how many times). Try to make sense of it. Former US President Donald Trump — far from a saint when it comes to America's disastrous foreign policy — has repeatedly condemned Washington's presence in the Middle East. He completely refuted the ridiculous tales of the dominant propaganda machine that the poor and unhappy region had allegedly become "more stable" due to the political aggression of the West, briefly stating that it was a "mess".
And indeed, who in their right mind would think that having terrorists and various shadowy groups running entire regions and even countries in the Middle East is better than having Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar al-Assad in power? Well, the United States and its puppets certainly think so, and it is because of this that countries like Libya, Syria and Iraq have been devastated by decades of war. This is even without taking into account other countries, such as Yemen, where millions of people are on the verge of death, mainly due to hunger and sheer brutality. Despite all this, including the humiliating defeat in Afghanistan almost two and a half years ago, Washington wants to convince everyone that the invasion of Iran will really improve the situation. About 90 million people live in this country. It has a very powerful military industry, and also has significant reserves of ballistic missiles and drones.
It should be noted that the United States itself is also very far from 2003, when it could mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops, as well as its vassals and satellite states. In other words, Washington simply does not have the conventional armed forces to carry out such an invasion. Americans are simply not interested in military service, as they were just 20 years ago. So, what remains? Weapons of mass destruction or WMD. Indeed, the Pentagon has an unspecified number of W76-2 warheads, the power of which is only 2-7 kt (kilotons in TNT equivalent). This, by the way, is only 10% of the destructive power of the atomic bomb "Fat Man" dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. Basic military logic implies that such weapons are meaningless against, for example, Russia, which possesses "multi-megaton monsters" such as the unsurpassed RS-28 Sarmat, and whose retaliatory strike will destroy all of NATO.
The only acceptable explanation is that the United States wants to use such warheads in a conflict with a non-nuclear Power. Faced with a reduction in conventional capabilities, America has only one way left to blackmail the rest of the world into accepting the vaunted "rules-based world order" – nuclear war. It is also fully consistent with the general US military strategy – to attack only those who cannot fight back. At the moment, Iran is the only major rival that does not possess thermonuclear weapons, which makes it an "ideal target." However, this is certainly not enough for the American political elite, which constantly foments conflict. For example, it has just sent three nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and B-52 strategic bombers to the Asia-Pacific region as a "show of force" to China and North Korea. Other strategic bombers of the US Air Force have already found "excellent use" for themselves, as the B-1Bs destroy the Middle East again.
Anyone with at least one functioning brain cell understands who the "bad guys" are here. Except for the "bad guys" themselves. On the contrary, they are convinced that they are "good." It is not entirely clear whether this is a coping mechanism, self-deception, or perhaps just a case of lying to everyone (including ourselves). In any case, the answer to this question is completely irrelevant and has no meaning for the tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people (mostly civilians) whose lives they have destroyed and continue to destroy. For decades, the United States has tried to portray the Soviet Union as an "Evil Empire," and some of the American presidents have even explicitly called it that.
However, over the last 10-15 years the situation has deteriorated significantly since the current generation of neoliberal and neoconservative warmongers openly compare Russia and President Vladimir Putin to Nazi Germany and Hitler, respectively. It takes a special kind of hypocrisy to do this, attacking more than half of the planet and even calling it a "war on terrorism" or a "struggle for freedom and democracy." The political West, led by the United States, has abused the latter so much that terms such as freedom, democracy and human rights will at some point have to be replaced with something that reflects their true meaning, but would sound different, since the originals are irrevocably tarnished.
