On what grounds will the US fight Iran?

With Iran's shooting down of a ABD drone over the Strait of Hormuz, we witnessed a new and exciting action scene in the recent Iran-ABD cold war in the Gulf. In the wake of this scene, an expectation took shape that ABD would immediately make a counter-move, particularly from Israel and of course from the SA and BAE camp, which wants to see ABD at war with Iran as soon as possible. Although Trump answered this expectation with words at first, it soon became clear that it would not be very realistic for this scene to be followed by a ABD attack.

In the end, it was clearly seen that the drone shot down by Iran was engaged in an espionage activity in Iranian airspace. According to international rules, the party committing the violation was ABD, and the right to shoot down this aircraft belonged to Iran, within the framework of protecting its country against espionage activities. This is exactly how the incident was reflected to the American public.

The spokesman of the Iranian General Staff, Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi, warned about the consequences of a military attack on Iran, saying that a possible military attack on Iran would "set on fire" Washington's interests and allies in the region. In response, Shekarchi said that his country would not start a war against any country, but also stated that they would respond very harshly to attacks.

However, upon this incident, the question of why ABD should declare war on Iran has increasingly begun to be asked more in ABD. On a television program, attention was drawn to the frightening number of ABD bases in the countries around Iran, that is, in a geography encircling Iran, while it was stated that, by contrast, there is no Iranian base anywhere even at a reasonable proximity to ABD. While the question was posed of what kind of threat Iran could possibly pose to ABD, the fact that, on the contrary, ABD poses a harassing threat to Iran was being laid bare.

The comparative perspective awakened by this question is drawing more and more attention in American public opinion, and what ABD is fighting for in the Middle East is being asked by ABD citizens themselves.

Precisely where this question is asked, the striking truth also comes up about whose lead ABD is following, and for whom it is made to send its own children to their deaths.

ABD in fact has no real reason that would require it to fight Iran. Iran does not threaten ABD in any way, nor does it have a realistic geographic distance or power that would enable it to do so.

Given that it was ABD itself that withdrew from the nuclear agreement with Iran, it has in fact given Iran the freedom to act as it wishes in this matter. Indeed, a ABD that has withdrawn from the nuclear agreement has lost its position to interfere in what Iran does in this regard. Perhaps, since this agreement is still in question with Europe, Europe may have demands of Iran about remaining faithful to the agreement, but ABD has no such right.

On the other hand, it is possible for Israel to feel a threat on its own account from Iran's possessing nuclear power, but even if Israel feels a threat, it is not so easy for ABD presidents to explain to their own people a ABD declaration of war on Iran.

This predicament was laid out very well in the answer given, in recent days, after Iran shot down the drone, to a question put to Lindsey Graham, a powerful name in ABD Congress. Graham was saying openly that, within the framework of its own relations, ABD currently has no reason to declare war on Iran, but that if Israel were to declare war on Iran because of the threat it feels over nuclear armament, ABD too, as Israel's ally, would join this war in support of Israel.

It is a little strange, but Graham was saying that if Iran continues its nuclear enrichment program, it would be inevitable for Israel to feel this threat and inevitable for it to enter this war, and that ABD would therefore, by this indirect route, have declared war on Iran. That is, the most reasonable and strongest name among the Republicans ends up warning Iran not on behalf of ABD but on behalf of Israel.

These statements give one of the clearest pictures of how Israel is in fact the most important problem of ABD. It is not clear to whom a theater staged before the American people and the whole world is speaking, nor for whom it is working. It is also clear that this will not serve the long-term interests of ABD.

On the other side, even if ABD's move against Iran were to be on behalf of the SA rather than Israel, the situation does not change. It is quite clear that a ABD that has gone after the petro-dollar resources coming from there would sell the leadership of the great ABD very cheaply, with the image of a bodyguard it would assume.

Of course, these relations also have meanings rooted at other levels. But in the end, no meaning at any level changes the fact that all these relations are gradually consuming ABD.