With Israel and the US engaged in an escalating battle with Iran, Western leaders are utilizing phrases that sound all too acquainted from the lead-up to the Iraq battle.
“In the present day, now we have the better energy to free a nation by breaking a harmful and aggressive regime. With new techniques and precision weapons, we will obtain army targets with out directing violence towards civilians.”
That will sound like one thing stated yesterday, following US strikes on Iran.
Nevertheless it wasn’t.
These phrases have been delivered by United States President George W Bush on board the USS Abraham Lincoln on Might 1, 2003, as he marked the top of main fight operations in Iraq.
George W Bush, as US president, offers a thumbs up as he declares the top of main fight in Iraq on board USS Abraham Lincoln, on Might 1, 2003 (AP Picture)
Now, with Israel and the US engaged in an escalating battle with Iran, world leaders are utilizing language and rhetoric that sound all too acquainted, drawing eerie comparisons to the lead-up to the Iraq battle greater than twenty years in the past.
Acquainted warnings, related justifications
Israel and the US have claimed their army strikes are aimed toward stopping Iran from creating a nuclear weapon. Iran, for its half, insists its nuclear programme is solely peaceable and meant solely for civilian functions.
For greater than three a long time, a well-recognized chorus has echoed from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran is on the verge of creating nuclear weapons. In 2002, he urged the US Congress to invade Iraq, claiming Baghdad was creating weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). He additionally claimed Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. The US invaded Iraq in 2003, however no WMDs have been discovered.
The most recent surge in inflammatory rhetoric from American and Israeli officers goes past Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions and missile capabilities. More and more, it hints at the potential of regime change, a route the US has an extended and controversial historical past of pursuing within the area.
Historical past repeating?
The battle led by the US and its “coalition of the prepared” left Iraq in ruins, with a whole bunch of 1000’s of Iraqis killed, about 4,500 American troopers useless, and the nation destabilised by deepening sectarian battle.
Wanting again, the rhetoric that paved the best way for that invasion appears unsettlingly acquainted. The US, together with the UK, tried to persuade the world that Iraq had WMDs because the battle progressed.
How nicely are you able to inform the distinction? Learn these 10 statements and resolve: have been they made within the lead-up to the 2003 battle or in 2025?
