Here We Go Again: History Repeating?
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Remember?
Are we witnessing history repeating itself? It's the same old thing. Last time it was Iraq who had weapons of mass destruction, ie nukes, chemical weapons, etc.
Remember when Tony Blair said Iraq could launch a missile and very soon it would hit Britain carrying a nuclear warhead? Well, it all turned out to be a front! Yes, folks, a front, as justification for invading and occupying Iraq.
No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. No nukes, chemicals, biologicals, nothing, nowt, zilch, nada, nicht. It was an excuse for George W. Bush II and his buddy in arms, Tony Blair, to invade Iraq. Oh, the other excuse was that Saddam was in league with Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda when in fact they were not.
The invasion added misery to a nation already on its knees because of sanctions, while at the same time still under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein. The invasion killed thousands of Iraqi civilians, and Saddam was captured, put on trial, and executed. There then followed a brutal civil war between different factions in Iraq. Allied troops were also caught in this crossfire. Many body bags came home to America, Britain, and Australia from Iraq and for what?
Eventually, Iraq's independence was restored; however, Allied troops remain mainly American. Iraq was then in the grip of the US or Iran. Iraq today is probably more stable than it was; however, it will take years to recover.
So we are being given the same lines again about Iran. Its enrichment is at 60%, although to be fair, you need to be at a 90% rate for enrichment for nuclear weapons. Israel has attacked Iran and is still attacking Iran, practising the same style of warfare it practised in Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria. Taking out infrastructure, taking out enemy leaders, and causing wholesale populations to flee. Israel has, according to its statements, backed by US statements control of the air. It has demolished Iran's anti-aircraft defences, destroyed missile launchers and storage facilities housing missiles and drones. There's even a price on the head of the Ayatollah to decapitate the regime. Israel has taken out the top brass of Iran's military. Mossad has operatives inside Iran doing acts of sabotage. The regime is also creaky, and the country and people are suffering from sanctions. Many Iranians are fed up with the regime, and some have been cheering Israeli attacks. People have been striking, adding further pressure to a regime under severe strain.
Iran has been firing missiles back at Israel, but its air force, outdated, outgunned, and underfunded, is no match for the Israeli air force. So is it game, set, and match to use a Wimbledon term for Israel over Iran? Iran, in a way, is like when Iraq struck Iran in the 1980s, very much on the back foot. Things would appear dire for the regime, and there's no denying it; they are. However, going back to the Iraq war with Iran, Iran eventually rallied and managed to push back the Iraqis. There followed years of stalemate that ultimately finished in 1989. Despite all that and the cost to the nation, the regime survived.
So the point I am making is this: Iran was up against it when Iraq attacked it, but it rallied. Iran, through sheer determination, might rally even under Israeli bombardment. Even though the writing on the wall seems to be apparent for the regime, through sheer faith and determination and no matter what it costs, Iran might still come through. Iran in the Iraq War fought very much on its own while Iraq was backed by other Arab nations and the US. The same is similar today with Israel, Iran faces a foe, better armed and more technological than itself. Iran has experience of fighting a better-armed and supplied foe when it fought Iraq, but the regime prevailed. This could be the case because Israel attacks Iran.
It will be for many Iranians, regardless of differences, and even though many hate their government, a cry to rally around the flag and defend their nation. Just as they did against Saddam and now against Netanyahu and probably Trump, too.
I am no admirer of the clerical regime in Tehran, far from it. But history is full of weaker nations rallying against a seemingly invincible foe. Whether it be the 300 Greeks who fought (ironically, the Persians), and their sacrifice bought Greece time to rally its forces and defeat the Persians. Or when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union and the Germans were not far from the gates of Moscow. But the Russians turned the tide of the war and pushed the Germans out. Or take the impossible position Britain found itself in 1940, when Germany was just over the channel, getting ready, or so it seemed, to invade Britain. Thanks to Churchill, despite everything Britain withstood the might of the Luftwaffe. Or even Pearl Harbour, which left America shocked and then they rallied, leading to Japan's defeat.
I'm not saying this is the case with Iran and that it will rally, but history doesn't always go as we think it will.
About the Creator
Nicholas Bishop
I am a freelance writer currently writing for Blasting News and HubPages. I mainly write about politics. But have and will cover all subjects when the need arises.
Keep reading
More stories from Nicholas Bishop and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Vlad The Invader and The Ayatollah.
As the war between the IRI, or Islamic Republic of Iran and Israel hots up, which way will Russia jump? Many would automatically think that Putin would throw his weight behind the land of the ayatollahs. The relationship between Russia and Iran is close, and pacts have been signed on many issues affecting both countries. Iran has supplied drones and missiles to help Russia in its struggle with Ukraine. Russia has provided military tech to Iran.
By Nicholas Bishop7 months ago in The Swamp
Gaza Under Fire as Israel Says It Targeted an “Imminent Threat”
Tensions in the Middle East have once again surged as Israeli forces carried out strikes in Gaza, with Israeli officials stating the operation was aimed at neutralizing an “imminent threat.” The attack has reignited fears of a wider escalation, drawing international concern and renewed scrutiny over the fragile balance between security claims and humanitarian consequences. As airstrikes shook parts of Gaza, questions quickly emerged: What constituted the alleged imminent threat? Was the response proportionate? And what does this latest episode mean for civilians trapped in a territory already devastated by years of conflict, blockade, and political paralysis? Israel’s Justification: Preventing an Immediate Attack According to Israeli military and government statements, the strikes were launched to preempt an imminent attack planned by militant groups operating in Gaza. Israeli officials emphasized that intelligence indicated preparations for assaults targeting Israeli civilians or military positions, leaving what they described as “no alternative but to act.” Israel has long maintained a doctrine of preemptive self-defense, arguing that rapid action is necessary to protect its population from rocket fire, cross-border attacks, and other security threats. In official briefings, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) framed the strikes as precise and targeted, aimed at militant infrastructure rather than civilians. This justification aligns with Israel’s broader security narrative: that Gaza-based armed groups pose a continuous and unpredictable danger, and that delayed responses could result in mass casualties inside Israel. Gaza’s Reality: Civilians Pay the Highest Price While Israel stressed security imperatives, the reality on the ground in Gaza told a different story. Local health officials reported casualties, including women and children, and damage to residential areas. Even when strikes are aimed at specific targets, Gaza’s dense urban environment makes civilian harm difficult to avoid. For Gaza’s more than two million residents, most of whom live under severe economic hardship, each escalation deepens an already dire humanitarian situation. Hospitals operate with limited supplies, electricity is scarce, and access to clean water remains inconsistent. Airstrikes, even short-lived ones, strain a system that many international organizations describe as on the brink of collapse. Residents described nights filled with fear, explosions, and uncertainty — a grim routine that has become painfully familiar. The Question of “Imminent Threat” The phrase “imminent threat” carries significant weight in international law and diplomacy. While states have the right to self-defense, that right is bound by principles of necessity and proportionality. Critics argue that Israel’s repeated reliance on classified intelligence makes independent verification difficult. Human rights groups often call for transparency, insisting that claims of imminent danger should be scrutinized, particularly when civilian lives are lost. Supporters of Israel counter that intelligence disclosures could compromise sources and methods, potentially enabling future attacks. This tension between secrecy and accountability lies at the heart of the ongoing debate. International Reactions: Calls for Restraint The latest strikes prompted swift responses from the international community. Several governments urged restraint on all sides, warning that continued escalation could spiral into a broader conflict. The United Nations reiterated its concern over civilian casualties and emphasized the need to respect international humanitarian law. Aid organizations once again called for humanitarian corridors and protection for civilians, stressing that Gaza’s population cannot endure endless cycles of violence. At the same time, some allies reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself, highlighting the persistent threat posed by armed groups in Gaza. This familiar diplomatic split reflects the broader global divide over how the conflict should be addressed. A Cycle That Feels Impossible to Break The latest violence fits into a long-standing pattern: attacks, retaliation, international alarm, and a temporary lull — followed by renewed tensions. Each round hardens positions and deepens mistrust. For Palestinians in Gaza, the sense of collective punishment remains strong. Many argue that regardless of militant activity, civilians bear the brunt of military actions over which they have little control. For Israelis, years of rocket attacks and security threats reinforce the belief that decisive military action is necessary for survival. This cycle leaves little room for political solutions, while reinforcing narratives of fear and victimhood on both sides. The Political Context Behind the Strikes Military escalations rarely occur in a vacuum. Analysts point out that internal political pressures, regional dynamics, and broader geopolitical shifts often influence timing and intensity. In Israel, security issues are deeply intertwined with domestic politics, where leaders are frequently judged on their ability to appear strong against perceived threats. In Gaza, militant groups operate within a complex political landscape shaped by rivalry, blockade, and regional alliances. These factors make de-escalation difficult, even when neither side appears eager for a full-scale war. Humanitarian Law and Moral Responsibility Beyond strategic calculations, the situation raises profound moral questions. International humanitarian law demands the protection of civilians and the minimization of harm, even in the context of self-defense. Human rights organizations continue to document casualties and destruction, calling for independent investigations into each escalation. They argue that accountability — for all parties — is essential if future violence is to be prevented. Without such accountability, critics warn, the concept of “imminent threat” risks becoming a justification that normalizes repeated civilian suffering. What Comes Next? As of now, the situation remains tense but uncertain. History suggests that short-term calm may follow, but without addressing the underlying causes — blockade, political fragmentation, security fears, and the absence of a credible peace process — lasting stability remains elusive. For Gaza’s civilians, each strike reinforces a sense of abandonment by the international community. For Israelis, ongoing threats reinforce the belief that vigilance and force are unavoidable. Conclusion The latest strikes on Gaza, justified by Israel as targeting an imminent threat, once again highlight the fragile and volatile nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Security claims, humanitarian realities, and political calculations collide in a space where civilians are caught in the middle. Until meaningful political solutions replace military reactions, Gaza will remain a flashpoint — and the phrase “imminent threat” will continue to echo after each explosion, long after the smoke clears.
By Muhammad Hassan7 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.