您现在的位置是:主页 > 金沙现金网站app > 环球时报赌伊朗不还手美国这样做多么不负责任伊朗伊拉克

2020-01-08 00:53   来源:  www.photo-nude.com   评论:0 点击:



Iran announced on Friday that it would stop fulfilling its nuclear agreement, the same day that Iraq's parliament called on all foreign troops to withdraw from its territory. Washington must feel that today's situation in the Middle East is more difficult than it was before US forces killed Suleimani.


The killing of Suleimani has plunged America into its worst isolation in the Middle East since this century. So far, with the exception of Britain's belated endorsement, few countries have publicly backed Washington's move. After Iraq issued a \"guest order\" to U.S. forces, President Trump said he could impose tougher sanctions on Iraq than on Iran, and demanded compensation from Iraq for the construction costs of U.S. military bases in Iraq. This is clearly a huge moral dilemma for the United States, and the security situation in Iraq is bound to deteriorate further.


America's policy in the Middle East cannot help but fail. America's system determines that it is often difficult to deal with a complex problem carefully and only to take simplistic decisions. Since the war in iraq in 2003, america has fallen back into a cult of self-belief over its powerful powers, constantly resorting to simple, take-or-taken measures to bring up new fronts, and every time it does so, it backfires.


President George W. Bush was ambitious to "transform" Iraq and even the Middle East. Americans at the time certainly didn't think that, after the cost of their lives and money, Iraq was more of a "reformed Iran.” The Trump administration must now believe that killing Suleimani could be an "example of killing a chicken ", but the rage that this" assassination "has provoked is clearly greater than fear. Most of the world's assassinations are counterproductive, something Washington has forgotten.


America's military spending has continued to rise in recent years, and washington has argued that america's military might is \"inadequate \", and that it will be better than other powers for generations to feel at ease and that it will benefit america's day-to-day interests. This reflects Washington's unprecedentedly misshapen view of national security.


When the military is stronger, it cannot help but be used, and in the face of a country like Iran, they will think,\" What if you hit you \", and they may want to give a little face to other countries that are openly or potentially unconvinced, as we said earlier. But there are things that cannot be solved by military means, especially the genes of civilizations like iran.


What worries us most is that the electoral agitation will push America into the dark. In the Middle East, however, things are in a state of chaos. Whatever it takes to get a vote in the upcoming elections, let's put the rest aside.



Things in the middle east are highly complex, and now america's posture is like \"wanting to stay \", money and people go more, influence as far as possible to stay, the way seems to be from time to time in the military success, who does not believe the missile flew to beat him. In that case, the Middle East will suffer, risking further chaos.


What is unfolding around Iran is another version of America's priority, and the fate of many nations and peoples in the Middle East has become a test product of the localization of America's priority. But the obvious truth is, this is a globalized world, the Middle East countries are not good, how can the United States alone?


If a large-scale Iranian war breaks out, is this good for the United States? If Washington doesn't want that, why create serious uncertainty? Is it responsible to bet on a \"no surprise\" ending that anyone is looking at?