Blogger’s Note: When I was picking-up my daughter from school a few days ago – I overheard a conversation between a woman wearing an Islamic headscarf – and a (WHite) English woman (both mums). The Muslim woman stated that as an Iranian her country would soon “be free” and that she was excited because the “end has begun”! The English woman then said that she could soon take-off her scarf and look and act “like a British woman” free of Islamic oppression (a viewpoint commonly expressed throughout UK media – to justify the UK’s ongoing sanctions and aggression against Iran). The shocked looking Muslim woman replied that it is not Islam that is the problem – but rather the “Socialism” that Iran practices! “Why should the lazy receive help from the wealth-off?” – she opined. She added that viewpoints suggesting that Muslim women should take-off their headscarves are “racist”. There then followed a bemused silence between the two. Ironically, I have been told that this woman (and her family) arrived in the UK as illegal immigrants, were given a free house, the car, healthcare, and everything else that comes with the Human Rights Act – and despite benefitting from a British Socialism no longer applied to the British people themselves – this is the kind of attitude she holds. I suppose she does not mind the British and US bombs that are currently tearing Iranians to pieces in the name of Zionist Israel – just as long as she benefits from the relative security the British Mainland offers her. Even though the presence of people like her in the UK is fuelling a resurgence of the far-right. ACW (6.3.2026)
Ecns.cn 2026-03-05
(ECNS) – Major U.S. news outlets are drawing sharp contrasts between President Donald Trump’s past denunciations of military intervention and his current decision to launch strikes on Iran, highlighting what critics describe as a reversal of his earlier rhetoric.
In a recent analysis, The New York Times catalogued Trump’s earlier attacks on former President Barack Obama, including a 2012 statement in which Trump warned that Obama, facing falling poll numbers, might “launch a strike in Libya or Iran out of desperation”.
The newspaper also cited a 2013 remark in which Trump claimed he had predicted Obama would attack Iran because of his “inability to negotiate properly.”
During his 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to end what he called the “reckless and costly policy of regime change,” a doctrine widely associated with the Iraq War under President George W. Bush. He positioned himself as a critic of prolonged overseas interventions and vowed to put “America first.”
That message remained central to his 2024 campaign. According to CNN, Trump declared on election night, “I’m not going to start wars. I’m going to stop wars,” while warning that a victory by Kamala Harris, who was running for the White House as a Democratic candidate at the time, would lead to “World War III.” He repeatedly referred to himself as the “President of Peace.”
Trump’s recent military action against Iran, along with his remarks urging Iranians to “take over” their government, has prompted comparisons with the very regime-change policies he once condemned.
The New York Times reported that Trump has ordered nine military operations in his second term, marking a shift from his earlier anti-interventionist tone.
Other Western outlets have made similar observations. The Washington Post reported during the 2020 killing of Iranian renowned General Qassim Suleimani that Trump had previously accused Obama of potentially launching a war with Iran for political gain — only to later escalate tensions with Tehran himself.
Politico likewise contrasted Trump’s campaign-era warnings against regime change with his administration’s increasingly aggressive posture abroad.
Meanwhile, the BBC highlighted the contradiction between Trump’s promises to end “endless wars” and actions that could broaden conflict in the Middle East.
(By Zhang Jiahao)
Editor: Mo Honge
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 