The US is Forcing Iranto Make a Nuclear Bomb

It’s obvious that the more the U.S. and its allies threaten other countries with red lines and publicly discusses the possibility of bombing them, the less likely they are to peacefully resolve disputes through negotiations. After all, any self-respecting country would search for a remedy when facing an armed invasion.

In other words, by taking an extremely hard stance NATO members are actually pushing those who do not immediately accept Western "truth" to create their own weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, those who are not currently planning to get a nuclear bomb will certainly ponder whether to continue adhering to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when for some reason a group of countries have decided that they can bypass international rules and regulations and dictate their own rules, which are constantly changing in favor of Washington, Brussels or London.

For days, all kinds of U.S. politicians with different levels of access to national secrets have publicly threatened Tehran at every opportunity with the imminent armageddon of Iran. Things went so far that even the U.S. presidential candidates openly declare: Elect me and I'll deal immediately with the Iranians in the toughest manner. Talkative politicians have used the term "air strikes" so often and so easily that it seems they have obviously forgotten that it represents not only an open violation of another country’s sovereignty, but also thousands of potential victims. After all, Americans are still too frequently apologizing for their "precision" strikes on military targets that have resulted in deaths of dozens of civilians. And there is no indication that they will stop saying "oops" after releasing another one in a series of their overly "smart" bombs.

Personally, I would not vote for a politician who has publicly acknowledged that he was ready to order the demise of hundreds and thousands of another country’s residents. But for some reason, Americans like it when a presidential candidate tries to look maximally bloodthirsty. However, even this point of view is understandable.

Americans for the most part still believe that Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela, and even Russia and China are somewhere far away from their measured paradisaical lives in comfortable suburbs of Chicago, Washington or Philadelphia. The revelation comes only when coffins with U.S. Marines arrive from Afghanistan or Iraq. Americans prefer not to disseminate even this topic too much. Heroes are buried with military honors, but then they are immediately removed from media coverage.

Americans have been shocked only once, when the twin towers in New York collapsed. But it has already been more than ten years. The wound has clearly healed, and America once again wants blood. The cowboys have pulled out their guns and started shooting again, this time not at the ceiling, but at people living on the other side of the world. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. Who is next? Iran? American politicians and military leaders have repeatedly admitted that they would gladly deal with Russia too, if Moscow didn’t have intercontinental missiles.

The bloodlust is so strong that Washington has stopped listening to others’ advice to pull itself together and think about what it’s doing. For example, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s statement has clearly fallen on deaf ears in the U.S. State Department. On Friday, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov compared the sanctions against Tehran to an attempt to change the regime. Gatilov said, “Additional sanctions against Iran, as well as potentially any military strikes against it, will unquestionably be perceived by the international community as an attempt at changing the regime in Iran.”

In the meantime, North Korea once again tested its three short-range missiles KN-02 on Friday. And rightly so. What else can they do?