After threatening to annihilate Iran with bombs, President Trump and the U.S. national-security establishment have decided to do so with their tried and true foreign policy tool of sanctions — or, in this case, they’re calling it for what it is — a blockade, which, as most everyone recognizes, is an act of war just as much as a bombing spree is.
Faced with Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz—an influence that has driven gasoline prices higher and affected Americans economically, especially ahead of mid-term elections—Trump, along with the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA, have seemingly accepted Iran’s economic grip on this vital passage.
Remember: Trump and the Pentagon at first considered deploying military force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Now, Trump has opted to impose a blockade blocking oil shipments through the Strait. Indeed, his strategy would mirror Iran’s own actions by stopping oil from moving through the Strait of Hormuz.
As the saying goes, if you can’t beat them, join them.
Nevertheless, the Pentagon quickly rejected and altered Trump’s proposal, revealing who truly holds the reins. CENTCOM—the U.S. Central Command overseeing Middle Eastern operations—declared that ships not calling at Iranian ports could continue to pass freely, while those docked in Iranian ports might be intercepted and seized.
Given a blockade constitutes an act of war, CENTCOM’s revised plan allows Iran to target vessels using the Strait that haven’t docked at Iranian ports. In practical terms, Trump’s original scheme was more straightforward than the Pentagon’s adjustment.
The objective here is to cut off Iran’s revenue from passage tolls on permitted ships. This blockade strategy draws from U.S. sanctions imposed on Venezuela and Cuba, where economic measures aimed to pressure populations into regime change or compliance with American demands. Venezuela is now an example of a regime—socialist-communist and involved in narcotics terrorism—that follows orders from Trump and the U.S. security apparatus.
Although Trump, the Pentagon, and CIA acknowledge that Americans will face economic hardships as a consequence of this unauthorized war against Iran—lacking congressional approval—they are betting that Iranian leaders, confronted with the threat of widespread famine, will surrender to U.S. forces before mid-term elections.
This approach is quite cunning—some might say sinister—because the American public is primarily concerned with the immediate destruction caused by bombs, as seen in the public uproar following Trump’s remark, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”
Yet, most Americans remain indifferent to suffering caused by economic tactics like sanctions and blockades, viewing them as “peaceful” instruments of U.S. foreign policy—standard methods within governmental practice.
However, I have consistently argued that sanctions, embargoes, and blockades represent profound evil. They target innocent civilian populations in other countries, inflicting severe deprivation, starvation, and disease to fulfill political objectives. This has been clearly evident in the cases of Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran.
Contrary to popular belief, these sanctions are rooted entirely in coercion and the threat of violence.
When these measures result in mass suffering or death abroad, the majority of Americans remain unconcerned. The 1990s Iraqi sanctions are a prime example, where U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright told Sixty Minutes that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were a price worth paying for regime change, a statement met with widespread apathy at home.
Similarly, when economic sanctions combined with Venezuelan socialism forced millions to flee that country to find safety, most Americans ignored the crisis—except when refugees arrived in the U.S., prompting calls for their deportation to countries where they face likely death, torture, or imprisonment.
In Cuba, decades of blockade accompanied by socialist policies have pushed the population to the brink of starvation and disease. The looming threat of mass death there goes largely unnoticed by most Americans.
Sanctions, embargoes, and blockades epitomize the malignancy that accompanied America’s shift to a national-security state and its commitment to interventionist foreign policies. Driven by fears of foreigners—whether Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Iraqis, terrorists, Muslims, communists, drug dealers, or undocumented immigrants—many Americans, including churchgoers, have effectively surrendered their moral judgment to the state.
To restore our country’s integrity, people must reclaim their consciences, critically examine their government’s morality, and understand that employing sanctions, embargoes, and blockades to destroy foreign nations or civilizations is equally reprehensible as such destruction through bombing.
Original article: www.fff.org
About the Author
