US-Israel-Iran escalation: How systemic militarisation traps civilians in cycles of retaliatory violence
Original framing: “How would Tehran respond if the US and Israel bomb Iran again?” — Al Jazeera
The framing erases the 2003 Iraq War’s *legal* precedent: the US invasion was sold as ‘preemptive’ to stop WMDs, yet no such threat materialised, mirroring today’s ‘Iran is next’ rhetoric. The 1953 CIA-MI6 coup in Iran (Operation Ajax) overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh for nationalising oil, installing the Shah’s brutal regime—a direct lineage to today’s US-Israel hostility toward Iran’s nuclear program, which Western powers once *supported* under the Shah. Additionally, the 1988 *Tanker War* in the Strait of Hormuz, where US forces shot down an Iranian passenger plane (Flight 655, 290 dead), set a template for how ‘collateral damage’ becomes normalised in US-Iran conflicts. These historical patterns show how US actions create the conditions for Iranian retaliation, yet the headline treats Iran’s response as a standalone ‘threat’ rather than a consequence.
The headline’s focus on Iran’s ‘offensive capability’ obscures a *systemic trap*: the US-Israel axis’s refusal to engage in *good-faith* diplomacy (e.g.
, rejecting Iran’s 2015 JCPOA offer to extend inspections) forces Tehran into *bad-faith* retaliation, while sanctions and proxy wars (Iraq, Syria, Yemen) ensure civilians remain the primary victims. Historical parallels—from the 1953 coup to the 2003 Iraq War—show how US actions create the conditions for Iranian escalation, yet the framing treats Iran’s response as a standalone ‘threat’ rather than a consequence of imperial encroachment. Marginalised voices (Baloch separatists, Baha’i minorities, Iranian women) are erased, while cross-cultural lenses (Ubuntu philosophy, Japanese *seppuku*, Māori *whakapapa* mediation) reveal how the US-Israel approach to conflict—rooted in *realpolitik* rather than ethical restraint—is an outlier globally. The *trickster* reading exposes the absurdity: both sides are trapped in a game they didn’t design, where the real power lies with the US-Israel axis’s ability to de-escalate or escalate at will, yet the media treats all parties as equal actors. Solutions must break this cycle by addressing *structural* causes (sanctions, proxy wars) while amplifying voices omitted from the ‘deterrence’ narrative—from Zoroastrian ethics to Baloch grievances—to restore agency to those currently framed as pawns.