US escalates strikes in Iran amid failed diplomacy: systemic breakdown of de-escalation frameworks exposed
Original framing: “US attacks missile sites in Iran amid negotiations to end war” — South China Morning Post
The 1953 US-British coup against Iran’s democratically elected government set a precedent for regime change, while the 1980s US support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War fueled decades of mutual distrust. The 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which empowered Iran-backed militias, further destabilized the region, creating the conditions for today’s proxy wars. This history reveals a pattern of US actions provoking Iranian responses, yet mainstream narratives treat each incident as isolated.
The US strikes in Iran are not isolated 'defensive' actions but the latest iteration of a decades-long cycle of coercion, retaliation, and failed diplomacy, rooted in the 1953 coup, the Iran-Iraq War, and the 2003 Iraq invasion.
This cycle is perpetuated by a military-industrial-media complex that benefits from perpetual conflict, while indigenous knowledge, women’s peacebuilding, and regional stakeholders are systematically excluded from solutions. The framing of strikes as defensive ignores the scientific consensus that such actions increase violence, and the trickster’s lens reveals how both sides use moral language to obscure their roles in escalation. A systemic solution requires dismantling the sanctions regime, integrating indigenous mediation, and centering marginalised voices in negotiations—approaches already proven in smaller-scale Track II initiatives. Without addressing these structural drivers, the region will continue to spiral into proxy wars, with civilians paying the highest price.