By Bhogtoram Mawroh
Despite Israel’s utmost attempt to draw the United States (US) into a protracted conflict with Iran, a ceasefire has been declared for now. This is not the first time the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to destabilise the Middle East, with the most recent example being the disastrous Iraq invasion. It was Netanyahu who lied about Iraq developing WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) with the then US administration supporting the claim to invade the country. This time again, as US and Iran were about to meet to talk about a new nuclear deal between the two countries, Israeli carried illegal strikes on Iran and assassinated many important members of the government. They claimed this prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, despite lacking evidence.
Tulsi Gabbard, United States Director of National Intelligence, had testified before the Congress in March that Iran was not building nuclear weapons. Later, after being publicly chided by Donald Trump, she retracted and claimed that Iran could produce nuclear weapons “within weeks”. This flip-flop was meant to get into the good books of a president who values personal loyalty above all else. But what about the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), an UN-mandated agency, whose report Israel used to justify the attack on Iran? In an interview with an international news agency, the Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said, “we did not find in Iran any elements to indicate that there is an active, systematic plan to build a nuclear weapon”. The report also mentioned this, and when asked why the report was used to justify the attack, the Director General said Israel should answer that question. It is to be noted that in October 2003, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, had issued an oral fatwa that forbade the production and use of any form of weapon of mass destruction. So, the claim that Iran was trying to make nuclear weapons was a lie fabricated by Israel. Then there was an attempt to spin another narrative.
Soon after the attacks, Israel starting asserting that there is a need for a regime change in Iran to bring democracy and freedom. Netanyahu especially stressed on the human rights violations and suppression of women in the country. One social media user astutely quipped that whenever a western nation talks about bringing freedom to women, it means that they are actually going to bomb them. Netanyahu speaking about women’s empowerment is particularly ironic, given that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for him for the war crime of using starvation as a method of warfare, as well as for crimes against humanity—including murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts committed during the Gaza war. At this moment, over 55,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces, including 28,000 women and girls and 17,000 children. The only reason that Netanyahu is not behind bars is because he is supported by western countries like US whose own track record in killing innocent people is horrendous.
Since the Second World War, the US has bombed 25 countries — and over half of them are non-Muslim, proving that the pretext of fighting terrorism (used for attacking Muslim countries) was always a lie. This list omits the coups the US instigated in many countries, removing heads of state to install regimes more favourable to their interests. Latin America is a good example of this. In order to protect the interests of its multinational corporations, such as the United Fruit Company, the CIA instigated a coup against the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954. Between 1960 and 1996, the US-supported military regimes were responsible for the killing of 1.5 lakh Indigenous Maya people and the rape of another 1 lakh Maya women. This is known as the Maya Genocide or the Silent Holocaust. US interventions also gave rise to the ‘banana republics’—Latin America countries characterised by poverty, corruption and mismanagement.
The current Ukraine crisis also has its origins in the 2014 coup which led to the ouster of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. The coup was openly supported by the US and its European allies. US efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO ultimately contributed to Russia’s invasion and the ongoing conflict. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the US did not want Soviet missiles near its borders. Similarly, Russia does not want US-led NATO missiles near its own.
Iran has also suffered from regime change operations sponsored by the US and Western nations. In 1953, the US and the United Kingdom sponsored a coup that led to the overthrow of Iran’s elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, because he refused to submit to Western interests. He had attempted to nationalize the oil industry so that Iran’s resources would benefit its own people. If the Khasis today had their own Ri Hynniewtrep and it were located near the US, there would likely have already been a coup and the installation of a dictator to help the US gain access to mineral resources, especially uranium. So, countries that the US bombed and destabilised have nothing to do with bringing freedom to the people from oppressive regimes but pure corporate and geopolitical interests. But, of course, this costs a lot of money.
The last conflict that the US directly intervened in was the Iraq War and that cost 2 trillion dollars and loss of thousands of American lives. To put things into perspective, India’s total GDP is currently 3.9 trillion dollars. That led to the rise of ISIS and further devastation in the Middle East, which suited the Israeli government who wanted to repeat the tactic with Iran. But going down that path meant the US would again have to spend trillions of dollars and lose thousands of their troops in the ensuing conflict. Israel was already being hammered by Iran’s ballistic missiles striking Tel Aviv and other locations. Without US support, its defenses would have collapsed long ago. So, they sought to force US intervention by shifting the narrative from destroying nuclear facilities to ‘saving the women of Iran’. From its own experience, the US knew such slogans are a sham. With the country already facing enormous debt and Donald Trump promising to end foreign interventions to focus on ‘America First,’ the US was reluctant to get involved. So, they dropped bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities—which, according to their own preliminary assessment, caused minimal damage—declared victory, and announced a ceasefire. Israel had to agree because it knows that it cannot survive without US support. Iran agreed because it had also suffered and needed to reorganise. To begin with, Iran has shut down all GPS services within its territory and officially activated the Chinese Beidou Navigation Satellite System. So, how is all of this connected to Meghalaya?
From my discussions with a few people (and I am sure there are many more), I see that there’s a lot of support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, actions termed genocide by the UN Special Committee with Israel’s former Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, also admitting his country is committing war crimes. They also support the attack on Iran, parroting the western propaganda of human rights abuse. I am not saying that there is no human rights abuse, but I am concerned about the double standards. As an indigenous person, I support Palestinian resistance against the occupation of their indigenous territories by immigrants from Europe and America in the same way I believe no group—Indigenous or non-Indigenous—can claim ownership of our homeland or anything in it based solely on their own religious beliefs. At the same time, I condemn the October 7 attack by Hamas, which resulted in the massacre of Israelis. Political struggle must never target unarmed civilians. Israel has been targeting civilians since it came into being. However, asking supporters of the U.S. and Israel to condemn the Palestinian genocide and call for Netanyahu’s arrest for war crimes will make them squirm and they will vehemently try to defend the Israeli government’s actions. I’m genuinely confused by such people, and perhaps readers can respond to my article with their opinions. I truly want to understand—why this hypocrisy?
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution)