Of course the irony is that those who claim that the revolutions were equivalent to a “new Iraq” are precisely those who collaborated with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is the Egyptian regime which allowed the US ships to move through the Suez canal now who justify their counter-revolutionary brutality in the name of “do you want to be another Iraq?”. It is the Iranian regime which collaborated for years with the Americans in Iraq [with the direct admissions of the likes of Khatami and Ahmadinejad (Khatami: “If it were not for Iranian cooperation, Kabul and Baghdad would have never fallen so easily”; Ahmadinejad: “Iran has provided a helping hand to the United States with regard to Afghanistan and the result of this assistance was the U.S. President’s direct threat to launch a military attack against us. Our country has also provided assistance to America in the restoration of calmness and stability in Iraq“)], who propagated to their Western audiences a continuity between Iraq and the “takfiri, Western-backed” uprisings in Iraq or Syria (i.e. in the former case of the protests in Anbar, Fallujah, Ramadi etc, a “new Iraq war” by the most people who suffered out of the Iraq War). It is the Iraqi regime which literally came on the back of the US tank which cites “foreign conspiracies” done through the agents of the Iraqi and Syrian peoples. To call this rich would be a severe understatement.
But coverage gets you influence, hence “anti-war” movements who wouldn’t be given platforms on the likes of the BBC but would on the likes of Press TV (Stop the War Coalition UK etc.) can cover up those examples of pro-Iran Western intervention; can cover up the clear-cut alliance between the US and Iran in Iraq; can cover up the Western rapprochement with Ian precisely because of its counter-revolutionary “stability”, or its Arab winter if you will – in short can cover up the West’s alliance with Iran in the age of the Arab Spring and indeed, even repeat Iran’s lying, stupid, Hasbara-like theories of “Qatar, Saudi and Turkey supporting extremists destabilising the region” (extremists who would be the first threat to the regimes of those countries) or even “the US is supporting ISIS” (rather than their plethora of Iraqi militias currently enjoying US aerial support). Implicit incidentally within the theories of the US “supporting ISIS” (and no the US does not support ISIS, though I certainly believe it allowed a situation where ISIS came into existence – unlike Iran and its mouthpieces however, who adopt the Zionist Hasbara-like tactic of turning the truth on its head (like claiming the US made weaponry ISIS possess came from “Syria rebels”, rather than from the runaway Iraqi army’s Mosul stockpiles Mosul which entailed several years’ worth of army equipment) the US did this precisely because of support for Iran’s sectarian counter-revolutions in Iraq and Syria, not because of support for the uprisings in these countries) is the notion that the thousands of Iraqi and Syrian civilians killed by the Americans bombing ISIS never existed.