SATISH SHARMA - not just Rotigraphy.: if Washington were granted uncontested access and total hegemonic oversight of the Strait of Hormuz, they would never abandon their forward military aggression in the Persian Gulf. They will never allow peace to reign in the Middle East.

https://x.com/Chetuyachinago/status/2043065393976127676

Chetuya Math Chinagolum

To understand why these peace talks are a blatant sham, look no further than this: even if Washington were granted uncontested access and total hegemonic oversight of the Strait of Hormuz, they would never abandon their forward military aggression in the Persian Gulf. They will never allow peace to reign in the Middle East. An empire does not view a conquered territory as a resting place; it views it as a springboard for further conquest. In 1803, Thomas Jefferson claimed he only wanted the Port of New Orleans to ensure the free navigation of the Mississippi for American commerce. Yet, once he secured that port, did the expansion stop? Not really. To protect that "vast interior," the American war machines immediately began eyeing the West, annexing Texas, provoking a blood-soaked war of choice with Mexico to conquer California, and violently pushing its borders to the Pacific. That is how they stole those lands from Mexico; it was not a purchase, it was a predatory expansion. Also, in 1898, the United States seized Hawaii under the pretext that it was merely a "necessary coaling station" to protect Pacific trade routes. But was Washington’s aggression sated by securing that mid-ocean stronghold? Nope, on the contrary, the acquisition of Hawaii immediately necessitated the conquest of the Philippines, resulting in a brutal war of subjugation and the slaughter of the Filipino people. Understand that for an empire, every "security" gain is merely a pretext for the next invasion. This is not a uniquely American pathology; it is the fundamental nature of all empires. When the British Empire acquired a controlling interest in the Suez Canal in 1875, they claimed it was only to secure a "lifeline" to India. Yet, to "protect" that canal, Britain felt compelled to occupy Egypt in 1882. To protect Egypt, they had to conquer Sudan. To protect Sudan, they devoured Uganda and Kenya. The search for "perfect security" is a lie used to justify a sprawling, endless march of conquest. If Washington successfully neutralizes regional resistance and turns the Persian Gulf into a purely American lake, the Pentagon will not pack up its bases and go home. They will use that control to tighten the noose around the rest of the world. I am more than confident that Iran understands this reality far better than me or the rest of us. An empire does nothing but take, take, and take. It is a beast that is never satisfied. The only way to ensure peace in the Middle East, and the world at large is to contain Washington. Until the United States is contained to the point where it can no longer plunder the globe at will, there will never be peace. The British Empire did not collapse because the British people suddenly grew a conscience and decided to stop stealing. It collapsed because they were no longer able to project the power required to continue the plunder. Peace is not granted by an empire's mercy; it is forced by an empire's exhaustion.

6:35 AM · Apr 12, 2026