SAEDNEWS: Fantina said that Trump’s erratic behavior was demonstrated with Israel’s 12-day war against Iran.
According to Saednews, The United States is a rogue nation that is more concerned about the geopolitical goals of its erratic and unstable president, Donald Trump, than it is about human rights or international law, says an American journalist.
“If there was ever any doubt, the international community now knows for a fact that the U.S. is a rogue nation, more concerned about the geopolitical goals of its erratic and unstable president, than it is about human rights or international law,” Robert Fantina said in an interview.
Fantina said that any agreement made by the U.S. is worthless, referring to the U.S. violation of the Iran deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (J.C.P.O.A.), during Trump’s first chaotic administration.
“Trump’s erratic behavior was demonstrated in this context with the 12-day war. He purportedly was seeking ‘peace’ where there was no war or unrest. He destroyed peace through ‘strength,’” he added.
The following is the full transcript of the interview:
Q: What is your assessment of the joint military campaign and aggression by the Israeli regime and the United States against Iran during ongoing negotiations, including attacks on military, nuclear, and civilian infrastructure, the bombing of residential areas, the killing of innocent civilians, and the violation of Iran’s national sovereignty, international laws, and the United Nations Charter? What are the regional, international, and even economic consequences of this aggression for all parties involved, the region, and the world?
A: The governments of both the United States and Israel consider themselves exempt from international law. Both have caused, and continue to cause, unspeakable suffering in the world. The U.S., of course, cannot be seen as a reasonable partner in any negotiations; President Donald Trump assured the world that he was going to allow two weeks of negotiations with Iran before taking any action - action that is illegal under international law anyway – and yet he bombed Iran after only two days.
It is telling to see the stark differences in the death tolls in Iran and Israel as a result of this unwarranted aggression. Israel and the United States, as is their usual style, cared nothing about civilian casualties, bombing indiscriminately, whereas Iran, in its justified and legal response, targeted military and economic centers in Israel, and U.S. military bases.
If there was ever any doubt, the international community now knows for a fact that the U.S. is a rogue nation, more concerned about the geopolitical goals of its erratic and unstable president, than it is about human rights or international law. Any agreements made by the United States are worthless; the U.S. violation of the J.C.P.O.A. during Trump’s first chaotic administration is certainly evidence of that fact. This could potentially impact world economies, as other nations seek more reliable trading partners. Militarily, other nations may feel the need to increase their military spending, making all of us less safe, lest they do something to bring down the wrath of the United States upon them.
Disregard for human rights and international law has long been the policy of the Zionist entity and the United States.
Q: Can one, under the pretext of preventing nuclear weapon acquisition—especially when no credible international report indicate that Iran’s nuclear program has deviated from peaceful purposes—legitimately violate a nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity during negotiations and justify it as a “preemptive strike”?
A: Definitely not; there is no provision in international law for such a practice. In fact, international law guarantees that aggressive action against any nation - in this situation, Iran – can be responded to with military force. So it is Israel and the United States that are in flagrant violation in this situation. The U.S., in 2023, ‘pre-emptively’ invaded Iraq to rid it of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ which the Iraqi government, and international agencies, said it didn’t have. No such weapons were ever found, and the death toll from that war is estimated at least in the hundreds of thousands, and many estimates put the death toll much higher.
Iran, like every other nation on the planet, has the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. It is also important to point out that Iran, unlike Israel, is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.)
Q: While the United States initially claimed neutrality regarding Israel’s attacks, its later involvement in the aggression exposed the falsehood of those claims and revealed that the campaign was fully coordinated and supported by Washington. In your opinion, could the Israeli regime have undertaken such an attack without U.S. support? And how were such operations planned and executed?
A: The Israeli government will sometimes act without first getting the approval of the United States, because Israeli government officials know the U.S. will come to their ‘aid’ whenever necessary. Whether or not the U.S. government knew that Israel was going to bomb Iran, once it did so, and Israeli officials realized that they couldn’t quickly vanquish Iran, the United States stepped in.
Planning for the initial attack by Israel took months to coordinate, but the U.S. has long had plans to bomb Israel, so it simply used them. The Biden administration had used computer simulation to plan such an attack, and learned that it was not feasible; not that it was a violation of international law and even common sense: those are not considerations for U.S. government officials. But under President Biden, it was discovered that the U.S.’s geopolitical goals for the Middle East could not be met by bombing Iran. But once the Zionist entity did so, the U.S. government stepped in to prevent its defeat.
Q: The U.S. President speaks of diplomacy on the one hand, yet on the other hand launches an attack on Iran in collaboration with Israel, even speaking of unconditional surrender and regime change. However, after facing the unity and resistance of the Iranian people and the country’s defensive forces, he proposed a ceasefire and a return to the negotiating table. How do you interpret this contradictory rhetoric?
A: This has been referred to as the ‘unpredictability doctrine’. Certainly, it is not a well- thought-out plan by Trump, but rather simply the way his brain seems to operate. It seems he wants to keep other world leaders guessing about his future actions, but that certainly derails any effective diplomacy: why listen to Trump, when what he says today may be completely reversed tomorrow?
Trump is the personification of hubris; he believes he knows more about any given topic than anyone else. One of the many things he knows nothing about is the will of oppressed or attacked people to resist. He has long expected the people of Palestine to simply surrender to their Zionist and U.S. oppressors, and live their lives as second-class citizens. He expected the people of Iran to rise up against a government that fought hard for, simply because he decided to bomb them. He has no cognizance of the fact that the U.S. overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953, replaced it with a brutal dictator, who was then overthrown by a popular, and mostly peaceful, people’s movement. He makes assumptions based on sound bites provided by right-wing news media, and their ‘experts’.
Q: How should the slogan “peace through strength” used by the U.S. President be interpreted? Is this peace truly global, or is it solely for the interests of the U.S. and its allies through force, sanctions, and war? What is your assessment of this concept in light of the 12-day war against Iran?
A: ‘Peace through strength’, on its face, is repressive. Many of the most repressive governments in the world today are ‘peaceful’, due to the strength of their governments. This ‘peace’, however, comes at a high price. The citizens of those nations are afraid to speak freely, to disagree with any government policy, to move about their country unrestricted; they are subject to arrest, imprisonment and execution for the slightest infraction.
The United States has always used its military and economic strength to exploit people in other nations and domestically; it uses its strength to enrich the elites in the U.S. and those of its allies. It defines ‘peace’ as a lack of war, but does not consider the suffering of countless millions of people living under that kind of ‘peace’. ‘Peace through justice’ is not something any U.S. president has ever considered.
Trump’s erratic behavior was demonstrated in this context with the 12-day war. He purportedly was seeking ‘peace’ where there was no war or unrest. He destroyed peace through ‘strength’.
Q: Given the contradictory behavior of the U.S. government—particularly the President—towards Iran, including launching an attack during negotiations, can the talks with the United States be considered a deception operation and a cover for military action? Can President Trump’s claims about diplomacy and returning to the negotiation table be trusted at all?
A: Nothing Donald Trump says can be relied upon to be factual or consistent. So-called diplomatic talks with Iran insisted on Iran surrendering its nuclear program, which the Iranian government has always said was for peaceful purposes; even U.S. intelligence said there was no evidence that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons. But Donald Trump, the man who claims to know everything about everything, knew better and bombed Iran. This resulted in global condemnation – of the world’s people if not their governments – increased hostility towards the United States, and greater mistrust of the U.S. by government leaders.
Trump entered into talks with Iran to see what he could get; if he succeeded, perhaps he would win the Nobel Peace Prize which he has long coveted. If he failed, he could use the excuse of Iran not agreeing to his unreasonable demands as the reason for bombing. Either way, any diplomatic overtures from Trump, or any U.S. president, cannot be taken at face value. There is always an underlying motive, one that has little or nothing to do with peace or justice.
Q: Considering the war-mongering nature of the Israeli regime and its continued involvement in regional conflicts, can a ceasefire with such a regime be trusted? And does this ceasefire mark the end of its threats?
A: The Zionist regime has violated its ‘ceasefires’ with Palestine; there is no reason for the Iranian government or people to think the aggression against them will end now. Israel wants to be the only powerhouse in the Middle East, despite the fact – clearly demonstrated in the last two weeks – that its power is very limited, and it can only succeed if it is backed up by the United States. It follows the U.S. model in many ways: aggression towards other countries; repression of large swathes of its own population; tolerating corruption in its leaders, etc. Iranian government officials know that they must be diligent; for Israel and the U.S., a ‘ceasefire’ is just a brief time for them to prepare the next onslaught. However, Iran was ready for them two weeks ago, and will be ready for them the next time.
