Poke, Poke, Poke

The U.S. has Iran completely encircled. It has over 100,000 troops in the nation on Iran’s eastern border (Afghanistan, where, just incidentally, the U.S. continued through this year to turn over detainees to a prison notorious for torture) and has occupied the nation on Iran’s western border (Iraq) for eight years, and will continue to maintain a “small army” of private contractors and CIA officials after it “withdraws.” The U.S. continuously flies drone aircraft over and drops bombs on the nation on Iran’s southeastern border (Pakistan). Its NATO ally (Turkey) is situated on Iran’s northwestern border. The U.S. has troops stationed in multiple countries just a few hundred miles across the Persian Gulf from Iran, virtually all of which are client states. The U.S. has its Fifth Fleet stationed in a country less than 500 miles from Iran (Bahrain) containing “US warships and contingents of U.S. Marines.” And the U.S. routinely arms Iran’s two most virulent rivals (Israel and Saudi Arabia) with sophisticated weaponry.

But, New York Times readers were told today, the U.S. must increase its military presence still further in that region because . . . it is Iran (which has no military bases in countries bordering the U.S. or fleets stationed off its coast) that is “belligerent” and poses a “threat” (after all, they just dispatched a failed Texas used car salesman who constantly loses his own keys and can’t pay his bills to hire teams of Mexican drug cartel gunmen to attack a Saudi ambassador on American soil!).
~ from Middle East Propaganda 101 by Glenn Greenwald ~

I am often amazed that so many of my fellow citizens don't see the connections between what our national leaders do in terms of foreign policy and the similar strategies employed in our local communities. If you fall into this category, Greenwald has provided a good object lesson.

By encircling Iran with threats to their safety galore, we actively are trying to goad them into doing something that we can paint as "provocative." If they fall into our trap, this will provide US leaders with the political cover to attack them.

We see this very same strategy at work in regards to the various Occupations throughout the country. Police -- often in riot gear -- surround and hassle peaceful protesters in the hopes of goading them to do something that can be painted as "a threat to public safety." If any of the protesters fall into this trap, this will provide the police with the political cover to be even more aggressive and brutal than they already are.

Two different scenarios, yet the exact same tactic is involved. Think there might be a wee bit of a connection here?