What worries me: State autocracy beyond all legality
Soberly considered, the observation remains that the U.S. arbitrarily breaks international law whenever it is to its own advantage. The U.S.A. does not shy away from direct terrorist acts, as in the case of the assassination of Iranian General Soleimani on January 3 in Baghdad - another targeted drone killing - nor from staged coups, support for warlords and civil wars. In the last sixty years alone, the U.S.A. with its secret service C.I.A. has been significantly involved in the coups in Brazil in 1964, in Chile in 1973, in Argentina in 1976, in the wake of which several tens of thousands of people were tortured and murdered. A particularly blatant case is Collin Powell's 2003 lie to the UN Security Council about poison gas deposits in Iraq, which was ultimately intended to justify the Gulf War II. Think of the CIA torture camps in Guantánamo, Poland, Romania and Lithuania, etc. Keep in mind the documents of targeted killings of civilians and torture in Iraq, which Chelsea Manning made public through Wikileaks, etc. pp.
The U.S.A. is no different from Russia and China and a number of smaller states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel and Turkey in terms of ruthlessly asserting its interests. Here, the protection of national interests or personal interests of despots and clans is above all the law.
The right is always the right of the strongest
Ultimately this has not changed. On current events. There is much to suggest that Donald Trump had Soleimani murdered for the purpose of possibly engaging in a personal narcissistic rivalry with Barack Obama, who had murdered Osama bin Laden in 2011, or to divert attention from the ongoing investigation of him and tactically strengthen his position for the upcoming election campaign. In return, the Trump Administration not only accepts murder and the violation of international law, but also the destabilisation of the entire Middle East without being in the slightest position to control the dynamics. The Trump Administration did this because it saw the U.S. as by far the strongest military power.
The aggressive instrumentalisation of the law
Analyses of the current conflict between the U.S. and Iran suggest that the targeted assassination of General Soleimani was a tactical aggression. The strategie behind wants to draw NATO into the conflict with Iran and thus to share the burden of war. The U.S. had had to make enormous efforts to find allies for its wars during the two Gulf Wars. Things would now be different.
If Iran had responded to the murder of Soleimani with massive counterattacks on U.S. positions, as assumed by U.S. military strategists, then other states, some of which had stationed their troops in the same positions, would have been equally affected. The U.S.A. did not want to achieve anything else with the assassination of Soleimani than to provoke Iran to an attack and to give the U.S.A. the pretext to proclaim the alliance case according to article 5 of the Mutual Assistance Pack. All member states of NATO would have been involved in a hot war. Trump could politically persuade the American people that this war was not his choice, that the costs of the war would be shared among many nations. He would try to propagate this war as a just war of democratic states against a dark, unjust state, to present himself in a shining light.
In other words, the U.S.A. wanted to use state terror to create facts that had the sole purpose of bringing about the pseudo-legitimate proclamation of the Article 5 assistance treaty.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan tries a similar strategy. However, his power does not have anywhere near the leverage to override or pressure NATO member states' concerns. The U.S.A. can do this and under the presidency of Donald Trump there is also a president who would be willing to do so without hesitation.
Seiten: 1· 2