LETTER: An ironic case of pot calling kettle black!

SIR – It can be readily demonstrated that the proffered US justifications for labelling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organisation are no more than hare-brained excuses designed to put further pressure on the Iranian people in pursuit of its long-standing policy of regime change from within.

In light of the fact the US has repeatedly terrorised many peoples and nations in various parts of the world, its designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organisation represents an ironic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
In pursuit of its long-standing strategy to bring Iran back into the orbit of its client states in the region, the US has consistently employed two destabilising tactics. The first is to exert enough pressure on Iran to force its rulers to submit to its will and stop resisting its geopolitical designs in the region.

The second tactic, applied in case of the failure of the first, is to wield enough economic pressure on the Iranian people to incite them to rebellion in pursuit of regime change from inside.
This ‘regime-changing’ scheme has been in the works ever since the 1979 revolution that ended the rule of the compliant US ally Shah Pahlavi in Iran. So far, it has not succeeded. Whether it would succeed in the future or not, depends largely on the continued support of the Iranian people of their country’s ruling powers.
Contrary to US claims that designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards would disrupt their activities and weaken their power, the designation is bound to further strengthen the power and influence of the Guards, as they would logically try to redouble their efforts to maximise their readiness capabilities in the face of US threats.

Such a defensive reaction to aggressive actions by the US is both logical and universal: it is not just Iran or its Revolutionary Guards but any other country or military force that is threatened by an aggressive foreign power is bound to
reinforce its defensive capabilities.
Sadly, this vicious circle of persistent US aggression, the defensive military spending of the targeted nations, and the consequent globalisation of militarism, fits well with the nefarious interests of the US military-industrial-security-intelligence complex—as well as with the interests of major banks and financial conglomerates that finance war and military spending.
The heavy-handed policy of the United States toward Iran can be better understood in light of this overall strategy. The essence of that strategy is control and ‘management’ of social, economic and military affairs of peoples and/or nations of the world. Practical implication of this strategy is that the US cannot countenance socio-economic structures that are at variance with its own model of capitalism. These ‘undesirable’ structures would include not only non-capitalist or centrally-planned
economies of the Soviet type but, indeed, any economic model that, like
the Social-Democratic economies in Europe, encompass social safety-net (or
welfare) programmes in favour of the poor and working people.
Yours sincerely,

Daniel Teegan,

Union Hall.