No, the two interventions are unrelated. Every indication is that they thought Iran would be a quick war with minimal impact on oil markets. Even if they did think the Strait of Hormuz would be closed for a long time, controlling Venezuela's oil does not help — it takes much longer than two months for Venezuela to meaningfully increase oil production. (And oil is ~fungible, so it doesn't really matter if the US is involved with production and sale. All that matters is that it's produced and sold by anyone.)
Not completely unrelated. Both were likely entered to distract from the same news story dogging him every 24hr cycle.
No, the attack on Iran was simply instigated by Israel, which has been trying to push the US in a war with Iran since at least 20 years.
Trump has a long history of doing what Israel wants- it's him who moved the US embassy to Jerusalem (which was illegally annexed by Israel), tore up the nuclear agreement with Iran, sanctioned the ICC, sponsored accords to get Arab states to accept the occupation of Palestine, and just the other day offered Saudi Arabia a civilian nuclear program if they do just this one favour to Israel (again the Abraham accords). His son in law Kushner is a personal friend of Netanyahu, like his father (who was nominated ambassador to France). Basically Trump has always been Netanyahu's tool.
Stop taking away responsibility for US actions. As you say Israel has asked US for a war with Iran everyday for 20 years and US has said no everytime. Now they said yes. So clearly US was able to say no and the choice to say yes was theirs.
Of course the US are entirely responsible for their actions. They're doubly responsible because not only they engaged in a reckless and illegal war, but also because they did it out of subservience to another country. The US politicians who promptly pledge their loyalty to Israel every time they're asked to (i.e. almost all of them), they are fully responsible.
I disagree with the current Iran action, however we can't just say that Iran has been forthcoming and compliant with their agreements.
>During the 1990s and early 2000s, Iran developed several undeclared sites, which were identified by international observers in 2002 and 2009. Following the collapse of negotiations with the EU-3 in 2005, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors found Iran in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement,[6][7][8] leading the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to pass a series of resolutions between 2006 and 2010 demanding a suspension of Iran's enrichment-related activities and targeting Iran’s banking, trade, and energy sectors.
>In late 2003, Iran was facing the prospect of censure and agreed to a degree of cooperation. In October 2003, Iran and the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and Germany (the "EU-3") struck the Tehran Agreement: Iran pledged to temporarily suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, allow more intrusive inspections by signing the Additional Protocol, and clarify past nuclear work. This deal, reached just ahead of an IAEA Board of Governors deadline, was intended to build confidence while a longer-term solution was negotiated. However, Iran's cooperation was halting and incomplete.[22]
>In 2004 and 2005, the IAEA uncovered inconsistencies and omissions in Iran's disclosures, such as experiments with plutonium separation and advanced P-2 centrifuge designs that Iran had failed to report. Iran's suspension of enrichment proved short-lived as soon it resumed certain nuclear activities. In June 2004, the IAEA's Board rebuked Iran for not fully cooperating. By September 2005, the Board found Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards (a formal trigger for UN Security Council involvement). Iran reacted by ceasing voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and restarting enrichment work. In April 2006, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had enriched uranium to 3.5% U-235, low enriched uranium suitable for nuclear fuel, using a cascade of 164 centrifuges at Natanz. This marked Iran's first public entry into the nuclear fuel-cycle capability club.[22]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
This culminated in the US withdrawal of the treaty after Israeli intelligence uncovered further evidence of Iran breaking the treaty conditions.
Ah, if only Iran did not get pushed onto the path of being a rogue state by the CIA. If only we just let other countries be normal.
Tell the story of what’s happened in the last 15 years, not just the 2000s under Bush 2.
In 2015, the JCPOA was signed to address some of these shortcomings. It especially enhanced verification and started discussions between Iran and the rest of the world. But rather than build on it, the 45th administration decided to cut it up without alternatives in place.
Considering Israel has a illegal nuclear program, why should we hold Iran to a higher standard?
Not sure what you mean by illegal.
India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan are all non-parties to the non-proliferation treaty. Iran is a party.
North Korea was a party, gave notice to withdraw, said they were still in then said they were out. The way that Iran is acting parallels the behavior of North Korea.