American rescue A mask of compassion a face of plunder
‘American rescue’: A mask of compassion, a face of plunder
TEHRAN - While the Trump administration is officially considering regime-change options in Cuba, reviewing the experiences of countries previously targeted for “American rescue” shows that this concept is not about the welfare of nations—it is a cover for blockade, pressure, and systematic plunder. This pattern also explains Washington’s hostility toward Iran.
Politico, citing three informed sources, reported that the Trump administration is exploring various tactics for regime change in Cuba, including escalating economic pressure and even a full blockade on oil imports. The report also reveals support from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio for such measures—pressure directly aimed at the lives of ordinary Cubans.
If read in isolation, this news might seem like a mere political event. But placed against the historical memory of U.S. interventions, its true meaning emerges. Cuba is neither the first nor the last target; it is the latest link in a long chain whose name is “rescue” and whose result is “plunder.”
Latin America: America’s intervention playground
Latin America has long been the laboratory of U.S. foreign policy, where every independent government sooner or later faces a regime-change project.
In Chile, Salvador Allende was democratically elected and sought to reclaim national resources, especially copper, from U.S. corporations. Washington’s response was not respect for democracy but economic destabilization, psychological operations, and eventually a military coup—leading to Pinochet’s rule and decades of repression and bloodshed.
In Guatemala, the democratically elected government of Jacobo Árbenz was overthrown simply for land reforms that threatened United Fruit’s interests. A country seeking independence became a battlefield.
In Nicaragua, the U.S. supported the Contras, fueling violence. In Panama, direct military intervention removed Noriega under the guise of law and order, but widespread urban destruction followed.
Venezuela is a contemporary example: crippling sanctions, support for a self-declared president, coup attempts, and even scenarios for kidnapping the legitimate president—all for one simple reason: oil control and defiance of the American order.
West Asia: The high price of 'rescue'
West Asia has also paid heavily for this “rescue.” In Iran, the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh marked the beginning of structural U.S. hostility toward any real independence. A government that nationalized oil had to be removed. Democracy was sacrificed, but interests were secured.
In Iraq, the 2003 invasion began with the banner of freedom. A coherent state was turned into chaos and terrorism. Millions were displaced, hundreds of thousands killed, and the economy devastated—results of the same promises.
In Afghanistan, twenty years of occupation ended with nation-building claims. The Taliban returned, the people remained, and the U.S. left—unaccountable and uncommitted.
In Libya, NATO’s intervention under the pretext of protecting civilians fragmented the country. Democracy did not arrive, but resource plunder continued.
Sanctions: A weapon against peoples
A constant tool of this policy is sanctions—a weapon targeting ordinary people directly. Sanctions do not remove politicians or reform power structures; they hit livelihoods, health, and daily life.
In 1990s Iraq, sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of children. In Iran, medicine restrictions directly impacted patients’ health. In Venezuela, economic collapse was the result of external pressure. Now Cuba faces the threat of an oil blockade, causing blackouts, transportation paralysis, and widespread economic crisis. Yet the same media justifying these pressures report on “popular discontent.”
How can a country with this record be a “rescuer”?
The key question arises: How can a country with a history full of coups, sanctions, war, and plunder claim to save nations? How can the same power that brought Chile, Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela to ruin suddenly present itself as the protector of Iran?
This contradiction is not real; it is propaganda. The U.S. has never sought to rescue nations but has always aimed to change governments resisting its dominance. Iran’s difference from many countries lies precisely here.
Why the U.S. hates the Islamic Republic
U.S. hostility toward the Islamic Republic of Iran is not emotional or personal; it is structural. The Islamic Republic is the only government that, for nearly half a century, has stood independently against the American hegemonic order. Neither coups, sanctions, nor wars have toppled it.
Iran not only refused to give its resources to U.S. corporations but also exported a model of resistance to the region. This is exactly what Washington cannot tolerate. The U.S. problem with Iran is not elections or human rights; the problem is the model of independence. Therefore, Trump’s promise to “rescue” Iran is not compassion but an admission of incapacity to break this resistance.
Trump: Same path, different tone
Trump may differ in tone but not in substance: maximum pressure, sanctions, threats, and finally, the promise of rescue. He is the same figure who imposed the harshest sanctions on the Iranian people while now posing as a benefactor.
In Trump’s logic, rescue means submission. Any country that refuses must pay the price, as Cuba, Venezuela, and dozens of others have.
Connecting past and present
News from Cuba, protests in Iran, and other U.S.-influenced events worldwide might seem like transient headlines if read without historical context. But placed alongside Chile, Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela, they form part of a project—one aimed not at democracy but at reproducing a plunder-driven American order.
If America were a true rescuer, so many countries would not share the common experience of coups, sanctions, and collapse. What is now under consideration for Cuba is the continuation of a path started decades ago.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, therefore, is the target of constant hatred and pressure because it has shown that it is possible to stand firm, pay the cost, and not submit. This is the greatest threat to a system that offers plunder in the name of rescue.
source: tehrantimes.com