Search with your voice
“The real target of the attack on Iran is China. Trump wants to cripple its energy supply.”
Eduardo Irastorza, a professor at OBS Business School, argues that the United States “has been caught off guard” and warns that Washington has to “attend to two fronts” while reserving capacity in the face of a possible scenario in the Asia-Pacific. He emphasizes that this is not a static war, but rather a “daily counter-response,” in an escalation that “has not yet reached its peak,” and warns that if he does not achieve a swift victory, Donald Trump could face significant political damage and even impeachment.
Paco Arnau, an international analyst at Redes y Medios, states that the true strategic underlying motive of the attack on Iran is to “strangle China” and stresses that “China has alternatives that the European Union does not,” especially in the energy sector. He believes that Trump “has embarked on an adventure” whose consequences are not well calculated and maintains that the political coalition that brought him to the White House is “blown up,” in a context where the majority of American society is increasingly opposed to war.
For his part, political analyst Carlos Paz argues that nuclear weapons are “the ultimate deterrent” and summarizes his thesis with a forceful statement: “A country that has nuclear weapons will be much more respected.” He argues that Iran is attacked “with contempt for international law” precisely because it does not possess such weapons, and maintains that, if it did, the scenario would be completely different and an offensive of this nature would not occur.
0 Comments