Dozer wrote: ↑06/01/2020 10:49
Ne spilamo svi njemacki ba...daj na eng.
Trump's dealings with Iran
The end of credibility
With its military strike, the United States plunged an entire region deep into the crisis and nevertheless claim that the world has therefore become safer. It has nothing to do with politics anymore.
A commentary by Torsten Teichmann, ARD Studio Washington
The Iraqi parliament is demanding the withdrawal of all 5,200 US soldiers stationed in the country to fight the so-called Islamic State. From Baghdad there are reports of rocket attacks on military bases. The United States has to face a threat of retaliation and sends thousands of additional soldiers to military bases in the region, for example to Kuwait. And yet US Secretary of State Pompeo claims the world is safer than it was a few days ago after the targeted killing of the Iranian Al Quds brigade, Soleimani, by the United States.
Given the crisis, the Trump administration is digging deeper. Here, US President Trump dominates the battle for the headlines: if Iran's leadership threatens retaliation against 35 possible American targets, Trump will text over 52 targets with interest for Iran that the US military has targeted. It is becoming increasingly difficult to speak of politics at all.
But the crisis in the United States and thus the West as a whole in the Middle East does not begin with Donald Trump. Loss of credibility in recent history is due to the invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush. The justification that Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein at the time had weapons of mass destruction was a lie. When the administration felt caught, it was argued that the world would be much safer without Saddam Hussein. Seems familiar.
Looking back, it was the United States that had supported Saddam's dictatorship in Iraq and its oppression and violence for years. For the people of Iraq who suffered, the fall of the dictatorship was of course a liberation. On the other hand, the survivors of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, whose relatives fell victim to a wave of terrorism against the American occupation following the 2003 US invasion, find the words from Washington to be pure cynicism.
The Trump administration is similarly ruthless: it was a mistake to completely abandon the nuclear agreement with Iran as a security structure instead of continuing to negotiate on the basis of the treaty with Iran. Even the harshest critics of the agreement had spoken out to supplement the contract. The hardliners and ideologues prevailed in Washington. And that strengthened the military, strategists and masterminds like Kassem Soleimani in Iran, who are campaigning for greater Iranian influence in the region.
Iran has reacted to economic sanctions and the so-called US policy of maximum pressure by escalating regional crises: in the Persian Gulf, in Saudi Arabia, in Iraq. Tehran decided when and where to attack the US military or U.S. allies' facilities. They demonstrated Trump. An American was killed in an attack on a military base in Iraq. The protest in front of the US embassy in Baghdad was perceived as a further insult in the United States. The US administration wanted to get out of the situation at short notice.
But a tactical decision like an assassination doesn't replace a political strategy. It would be important in Washington and Tehran to recognize that the military and pressure alone cannot replace a political solution. The parties to the conflict urgently need a way out of the confrontation.
kad ovakav tekst osvane na državnom mediju, onda to ne znači ništa drugo nego da se njemačka u potpunosti distancira od američke politike. 
