For years, a single narrative has been repeated across our region:
“Iran is the biggest threat.”
This narrative always brings up the same examples: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iranian influence in Iraq, military support in Syria, and Tehran’s role in Yemen. These cases are presented as definitive proof of an “Iranian expansionist project” that endangers the region.

But here’s the question almost no one asks:
If these relationships are considered dangerous foreign interference,
why isn’t the same logic applied to countries with far deeper ties to external powers like the United States and Israel?
These powers have actual military bases in the region, direct security agreements, and economic and political influence over entire states. Yet their presence is rarely labeled as “expansionism” or a “threat to sovereignty.”

So why is the standard of “danger” applied only to Iran?

The truth is that inflating the so-called “Iranian threat” serves one main purpose:
to benefit the powers that want the region divided, weak, and busy with internal conflicts, while they continue to control its resources, trade routes, and strategic position.

This doesn’t mean Iran is flawless or that its policies are always positive.
But turning Iran into an absolute enemy ultimately serves external agendas more than it serves the people of this region.

So the real question we should be asking is:
Is Iran truly the enemy?
Or are we simply repeating a narrative designed to distract us from the powers that actually shape the region’s destiny?

William Cooper

Trump Iran prices

So.e one some where has to put a stop to this insanity

Depleted U.S. oil stash loses potency as Iran war grinds on - Reuters