There’s No 'Regime' in Iran for John Bolton to Change on the Cheap

Rasa - He might be a self-confessed fan of regime change in Iran, but the latest US national security adviser is barking at the wrong tree if he looks to be itching for a new conflict in the Middle East.

News ID: 437026

Date: 29 March 2018 - 23:19

RNA - When George W Bush was weighing up his disastrous options on whether to go to war with Saddam Hussein in order to effect regime change, John Bolton was right there with him.  As undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from 2001 to 2005, he pushed an agenda of harsh military response to perceived threats to American security, no more so than in helping shape the narrative that launched the Iraq war. But that was 2001; we are now living in 2018 and there is no regime in Iran except for a democratically-elected government.

Still, the ‘fakestream’ media in the West would like to suggest that an unrepentant Bolton remains a keen enthusiast for regime change in Iran. Who cares? In fact, no one, particularly in Iran, which just recently helped the governments of Iraq and Syria kick out the death cult of ISIL and its medieval caliphate from the Levant – with a helping hand from Russia and Hezbollah.

However, when it comes to the detail of the narratives, that’s not all:

A- The US national security advisor is wasting his time feeling bullish and confident because Trump’s presidency has already reduced American prestige and power on the world stage, while unsettling and disturbing old allies, pushing them towards America's enemies. Trump has perfected in a career that is littered with lies and betrayals both as a businessman and now as president. No one at the UN Security Council believed his ambassador Haley when she showed pieces of metal that she allegedly said belonged to Iranian missiles used by the Ansarullah of Yemen to target Saudi Arabia. Further still, Trump no longer feels the need for the likes of Rex Tillerson, brutally sacked as secretary of state via Twitter, nor for H R McMaster, who, unlike the unfortunate Tillerson, was at least allowed the dignity of resigning from his post in order to make way for Bolton. Bolton is way off the line to think there might be an exception for him here.

B- Bolton advocates a foreign policy that exaggerates threats, belittles diplomacy, shows contempt for international institutions, and is quick to use violence. This is not what the European Union wants. Bolton wants to shred the Iran nuclear deal...and bomb Iran whose policy has consistently favored stability. Again, the EU wants none of that. Bolton hates the nuclear deal that was signed not only by the US and Iran, but also by Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, and the EU. Although the deal is working and even Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said it is in our national interest, Bolton calls the Iran deal a massive strategic blunder. Even if the US pulls out of the deal, it won’t mean the end of the world as it is not working for Iran already. It never did since it came into force under President Obama.

C- Bolton has been breastfed by the anti-Iran terrorist organization called MEK or MKO, a fringe group that was listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States and the EU and is still considered a terrorist organization inside Iran. Bolton routinely meets with and accepts payments from the hated terrorist group, which has been responsible for the murder of 17,000 Iranians and even American soldiers. Bolton considers the MEK a ‘viable opposition’ that he wants to use to overthrow the Iranian government. He may keep dreaming so because this is not what the people of Iran think of one of the most detested cults in the country. In fact, the terrorist organization has been shattered by Iran twice and was on the brink of total collapse after it lost several thousand militants in a full-scale assault on the motherland at the end of Saddam Hussein's imposed war on Iran in 1988 and it would have been annihilated if not rescued by the US in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

D- Bolton hates the United Nations and International Law and this will certainly isolate him among America’s NATO allies again. It is one thing to be critical of the UN but Bolton opposes its very existence. More than that, he is hostile to the concept of International Law, having once declared, “It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to International Law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so because over the long term, the goal of those who think that International Law really means anything are those who want to constrain the United States.”

All this and more should bring Bolton and the ‘fakestream’ media in the West to this embarrassing conclusion that regime change on the cheap simply isn’t feasible even if the United States distorts the picture and is ready to commit, politically and militarily, to another Middle Eastern theater for an extended period of time.

It should be clear enough that to pursue a policy of regime change for faulty reasons would be foolish in itself. After all, the US-led warmongers failed to regime change Syria - and Yemen - after years of support of those extremist elements inside of the Levant and arming their regional allies. There’s no reason to think this time it will be otherwise.

This is another way of saying that the Trump administration’s official policy of regime change toward Iran (whose foreign policy is mostly pragmatic and defensive), has inadvertently made Washington a far greater danger to the stability of Middle East than Washington’s terror proxies and regional partners. Yet, experts and policy-makers in Tehran see the Trump theater as no more than a bluff as the US lacks the needed economic, political and military potentials and legitimacy to go for yet another adventurism in the world. Plus, Iran is not Iraq and Afghanistan. Any doubter should go ask Marshal Zini.

Source: Fars News Agancy

847/940