Paul Iddon, for instance, accuses Iran of being “an accomplice and enabler of wanton Russian aggression” in Forbes. In their article for Foreign Policy, Ellie Geranmayeh and Cinzia Bianco argue that the United States and Europe should concentrate “on ways they might detect and counter Iranian weapons used in Ukraine as well as increasing the actual consequences for Iran with its own population.”
John Hardie and Behnam Ben Taleblu claim in the same magazine that Russia’s “campaign of terror” in Ukraine has benefited from Iran’s Shahed-136 drone, and that such arms shipments are a component of Iran’s “attack against the West.”
A Washington Post editorial claims that Iran is “fomenting trouble” worldwide and exhibiting “aggressiveness overseas” by “helping Russia destroy Ukraine,” among other reasons being Iranian drone exports to Russia.
In addition to the fact that there are few instances of US media outlets employing equivalent terminology to describe the impacts of weapons created in the country, a quick scan of recent news reveals unambiguous support for US arms exports.
President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, according to CNN’s Peter Bergen, have demonstrated “genuine leadership” in the Ukraine conflict by taking steps like authorizing “military aid to Ukraine, including highly precise HIMARS missiles and shortly M1 Abrams tanks.”
The Biden administration, however, “poured cold water on the negotiations in March, when Ukrainians were considering a negotiated conclusion to the war but instead walked away from the negotiating table,” as Jeffrey Sachs notes. According to Bergen, “true leadership” occurs when a head of state utilizes his or her influence to prolong a conflict and then provides the means for the blood to flow.
The New York Times’ Brett Stephens maintains in a similar vein: “It’s time to supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs to win quickly, including F-16s, not just to survive indefinitely.” But, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists supports the opposition. The group urges that while denouncing the Russian aggression.
The United States must, at the very least, maintain the door open for ethical dialogue with Moscow that lessens the alarming rise in nuclear risk that the conflict has encouraged. A component of risk mitigation could be ongoing, high-level military exchanges between the US and Russia to lessen the possibility of error. There are many avenues for communication between the US government, its NATO partners, and Ukraine; they should all be investigated. Finding a route to meaningful peace talks might significantly lower the likelihood of an escalation.
Stephens is by no means the only person to praise the US arms trade. Michael Makovsky and Blaise Misztal claim in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that “US arms depot in Israel has become a stockpile of democracy in recent months, as the Biden administration has transferred its artillery shells to Ukraine”.
In the event of a regional war, Israel and the US would both have quick access to weaponry thanks to the War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel (WRSA-I) base. In the conclusion of their essay, Makovsky and Misztal rehash the same platitudes about democracy, stating: “Use the US arsenal in Israel to provide Ukraine with any and all of its necessities. To ensure that the WRSA-I can once more act as a crucial cache of democracy the next time a conflict flares up, America should then swiftly improve and replenish it for US-Israeli use in the Middle East “.
The analysis of the Ukraine war by Makovsky and Misztal is, at best, stunningly naive. Russia and NATO, especially the United States, are at war through proxies. The reason US and its allies are flooding Ukraine with weapons is not so that it may become a democracy, but rather because NATO is engaged in a positional battle with Russia that interferes with Ukrainians’ ability to manage their own affairs.
It is ludicrous to claim that the US and Israel utilize force to promote “democracy” in the Middle East. US weapons are employed in the region to support cruel pro-US tyrannies and for American invasions and occupations that cause unimaginable amounts of death and destruction at scales that are hard to fathom, as what happened in Iraq. Israel, for its part, uses American weapons to attack the region’s peoples, often at a grave cost.
Makovsky and Misztal use Iran to address such slaughter, as you may have expected. The authors claim that Israel utilized the WRSA-I twice “both times, in 2014 during its war with Gaza and in 2006 during its conflict with Lebanon. This was advantageous for the US since it assisted a crucial partner in defending itself from Iran-backed terrorist organizations “.
According to the UN Human Rights Council, Israel engaged in “a widespread and systematic campaign of direct and other attacks throughout its territory against its civilian population and civilian objects, as well as massive destruction of its public infrastructure, utilities, and other economic assets” during the 2006 attack on Lebanon, using an arsenal that was largely supplied by the US.
Almost 1,100 Lebanese were killed by Israel, the most of whom were civilians. Children made up about one-third of the dead and injured, which is problematic information for Makovsky and Misztal’s propaganda about “Iran-backed terror organizations.”
Moreover, from “Amnesty International stated that Israel was using American weapons “to violate human rights” while “defending itself” in the 2014 conflict. The US government must acknowledge that by regularly shipping and funding such large-scale purchases of armaments, they are aggravating and facilitating even more serious atrocities against civilians during the Gaza conflict “.
Twenty-three days into the conflict, “more than 1,400 Palestinians, predominantly civilians,” many of them children and aid workers, were among killed that the Israeli soldiers valiantly fought.
One could be excused for believing that US weapons don’t actually murder and maim people, given rhetoric that claims they serve as a “stockpile of democracy” and show “true leadership” in the world.
The Bergen-Makovsky-Misztal-Stephens school of thought’s critics would respond, “But, what if these weapons are primarily being used against evil people and averting worse damages than would occur had these weapons not been utilized?” There have been several instances of American weapons massacring civilians in the past few years alone.
At least 100 people were killed and more than 500 were injured when Saudi Arabia and its allies bombed a funeral in Yemen in 2016. The coalition used “a US-manufactured air-dropped GBU-12″ Paveway II 500-pound laser-guided bomb” to carry out the attack. US was portrayed as “an accomplice and enabler of wanton [Saudi] aggression” or as taking part in a “campaign of terror” in Yemen in the little corporate media coverage in the US.
Similar to this, during Israel’s invasion against Gaza in May 2021, the Israeli force killed 42 Palestinians on the Strip’s al-Wehda Street, including ten children. According to Human Rights Watch, “Bombs from the 1,000 kg GBU-31 series that were dropped from the air and equipped with a Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) guidance kit were used in the al-Wahda Street strikes. Boeing created this kit, which the United States then sent to Israel “.
There are surprisingly few reports of the massacre in US media, for example, in which it is claimed that America is “aggressively acting abroad” by “aiding [Israel] in destroying [Palestine]” or that states should concentrate on “ways they can interdict and counter [American] weapons used in [Palestine] as well as increase the tangible costs for [the US] with its own public.”
While reporting on the shipments of weapons by recognized enemies, US media made hue and cry like civilian killing support terrorism and so on but what is interesting to note over here is American media often gives the impression that they are doing PR for Raytheon or Boeing when they cover US arms exports.