The subject of our comment today is obvious. The most tense region of the planet, the Middle East, is at the limit and the option of a military operation or a war is real, just a reckless shot, to force one of the opponents to a war that does not suit anyone, although superficially It seems so. The obvious and already answered question Why did Trump order the murder of an important Iranian general, aware of what can be triggered? It is obvious that for electoral reasons, to divert public attention from the process of political judgment, so that the so-called Impeashment is relegated to the background in the political and social debate in the country. Some say that to mobilize their bases, but this is questionable, because part of Trump’s electoral base feels a total disinterest for what happens outside the United States, remember how during his election campaign in 2016 he criticized the too much interest that Washington put abroad instead of dealing with home problems. In the event that this escalation has any negative repercussions for the country, part of that republican electoral base could question the president, and on the other hand, the most progressive electorate against him could be mobilized.
Does it suit some of the actors in Middle Eastern politics? Absolutely nobody. Many want Iran erased from the map, it is true, but something very different is being willing to face the consequences. A war against Iran, a super-influential country in the region, would irrigate gasoline along the so-called Shiite arch, and that would mean unprecedented chaos within those enemies of the Persian nation; There are many examples of what can happen, perhaps one of the most illustrative is Yemen. Nor is Israel, another volcano that could explode and already humiliated by Hezbollah in 2006, convenient for it. It is not convenient for a Syria that strives for peace, nor for a Russia interested in the Middle East reigning as much stability as possible, even , for national security issues. Nor is it convenient for China, promoter and financier of the millionaire megaproject known as the Silk route and importer of Iranian oil, nor a world that is heading for a new economic crisis, and as we said, it does not suit the United States. This is not the attack on the twin towers, this is not Pear Harbor, here there has been no talk of weapons of mass destruction like those that Saddan Husein had hypothetically. Don’t get confused, and don’t let Trump do it when it comes to measuring the impact on American public opinion. The plan had to be more elaborate, with more perception of danger.
In my opinion, they decided to play with a candle because they trust the prudence of the Iranian government when it comes to responding and that they did not tighten the rope enough. In short, it is a criterion, it is a thesis; but in this matter I have some doubts that I would like to share. If Trump was looking for a coup d’état, why look for him in a region that apparently has taken priority and against an actor as dangerous as Iran? Why didn’t he attack one of those supposed “demons” that exist in Latin America? In American public opinion there is no better seeded matrix against Venezuela or Nicaragua, to name two examples? There are the arsonists of Guido, Marco Rubio, Claver-Carone and a few puppet presidents willing to lend a hand and body if necessary. Could it be that the president has understood the very high cost of all kinds that an invasion in Latin America would have and that his position here is much weaker than he assumed at the time? They are some questions to think about.