Question. Why is Iran Really Getting Whacked?
Rachel Maddow expressed skepticism regarding the motives behind the United States’ initiation of a war with Iran on a Saturday morning, arguing that the U.S. administration’s stated reasons do not withstand rational deduction. Marrow contends Iran posed no immediate threat to the U.S. homeland, as it lacked intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and is not believed to be close to developing them. Even Secretary of State Rubio is cited as admitting that such a capability is only a distant, hypothetical possibility rather than a current reality, leading the author to dismiss the missile threat as a justification for conflict. Finally, the claims that Iran is on the verge of industrial-grade uranium enrichment, as proposed by Steve Witkoff, a real estate developer and friend of the president, who has been involved in high-level talks despite a perceived lack of relevant experience is bogus. The fact that neither international intelligence nor the Trump administration’s own officials—including Rubio during a recent press conference in Saint Kitts and Nevis—have provided evidence that Iran is currently enriching uranium. Thus, the official justifications for military action are inconsistent with the available facts.
So, what gives? Why did the U.S. blow Iran to the desert dustbin?
In my opinion, you have to see the chessboard. In The West Wing episode “Hartsfield’s Landing” (Season 3, Episode 14), President Bartlet tells Sam Seaborn to “see the whole board”. Using a chess game metaphor, Bartlet advises his staff to look beyond immediate, narrow details—such as a single chess move or a minor political crisis—and consider the broader strategic, long-term picture. In the case of Iran, it’s all about power.
And oh, that little itty-bitty island just 1,500 – 1,800 miles northwest of the U.S. coast might have something to do with it as well. “You mean ‘Greenland?'” you ask. Yeah, Greenland.