What Are the Trump Administration's True Objectives in Iran?

"Not surprisingly, most of President Donald Trump's justifications for the war are demonstrably false: First of all, there is no evidence that Iran was planning a pre-emptive attack or constituted an imminent threat, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others have claimed. Secondly, given that Iran's missiles have a maximum range of 1800 miles, and that Iran is estimated to be a decade away from developing intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching North America, Trump's claim that Iran was on the verge of being able to attack the United States is absurd."

"Trump also repeated the long-debunked claim that thousands of Americans and millions of others were killed and wounded by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) made by Iran. Not only are these numbers gross exaggerations, but the vast majority of IEDs targeting U.S. forces were manufactured by Iraqi guerrillas (most of whom were anti-Iranian Salafists, Baathists, and others), not by Iran. And the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen's Aden Harbor, which Trump has also mentioned, was done by Al-Qaeda, a bitter rival of Iran, not by anyone from Iran."

The article examines the justifications presented by the Trump administration for escalating military conflict with Iran, arguing that these rationales are demonstrably false and misleading. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio claim Iran posed an imminent threat, but evidence shows Iran lacks the capability to attack the United States, with missiles limited to 1800-mile range and intercontinental ballistic missiles estimated a decade away. The administration falsely attributes IED casualties to Iran when most were manufactured by Iraqi guerrillas, and incorrectly credits Iran with the USS Cole attack, which was perpetrated by Al-Qaeda. The article suggests such military action would prove disastrous, comparable to the Iraq War, and questions the true motivations behind pursuing such a reckless conflict.

Read at Truthout