[ty6853]

Iraq and Gaza was an absolute joke compared to what it would take to topple the Iranian militants, militias, and government.

Much of the terrain is similar to Afghanistan. Tribal islamic alliances are resilient against loss of central governance. There is a massive porous mountainous border to 2+ countries that conceivably will look the other way for certain islamic militants.

I know everyone wants to gobble down the campaign about complete air superiority and toppling of leaders, and that WhatsApp may be separating the regime from 52 virgins, but realize this is a propaganda campaign. This initial propaganda only serves to manufacture consent long enough to buy citizens in to blood so they can't back out. We're in the process of being tricked.

[Buttons840]

Iran has their terrorist group proxies throughout the region. I think there's some truth to this, although the actions of some truly rogue terrorist groups probably get blamed on Iran because it's been the zeitgeist for a few decades to find reasons to attack Iran.

Whatever the case, the current Iran regime hasn't given nuclear material, chemical weapons, or biological weapons to these terror groups.

If the current Iran regime is eliminated from afar, with some fly-by bombings or whatever, what happens in the chaos that follows? Nuclear material and other weapons do not poof out of existance when the government that created them falls. Which group will control the nuclear material going forward? Roll the dice to find out.

[FridayoLeary]

America and Friends. And by that i include russia and china, because even they care about other countries not having nukes. If/when the regime falls nobody will be able to stop them. Just look at Syria.

[Buttons840]

How will America and Friends secure the nuclear material? Boots on the ground?

[FridayoLeary]

just a quick raid. The first thing to collapse would be the armed forces. It would be like stealing candy from a child.

[bawolff]

I don't think anyone is suggesting invading with boots on the ground. It would be a blood bath, as you say, and nobody seems interested in that.

I suspect what Israel is hoping for is that if they disrupt Iranian internal security enough, Iran wont be able to put down protestors. In the past there have been protests that Iran had to put down violently, so its not crazy. At the same time, hard to imagine anyone going out to protest while bombs are falling, and external threats tend to increase support for incumbants. So probably a long shot.

What they will probably settle for is blowing up their nuke stuff and missles, hoping that the economic disruption of the war is enough that its too expensive for iran to rebuild it.

Of course, nobody really knows.

[csomar]

No, if you disrupt the current regime, you get something more extreme akin to ISIS. You can negotiate a peace deal with Iran, but you can't negotiate a peace deal with 50+ Islamic factions each running its own territory. That would require boots of the ground; and that's what the current leadership is looking for.

The parent poster is correct. It is much easier to convince you into this if I tell you "We can solve the middle-east issues with just one click(bomb)!". That would get people in a FOMO where we have to act NOW and have this resolved quick and easy; or choose to be complacent and lose this opportunity.

Of course we don't know how this will play out since we don't have any history except for the last 50+ years or so.

[bawolff]

> You can negotiate a peace deal with Iran, but you can't negotiate a peace deal with 50+ Islamic factions each running its own territory

50+ islamic factions are unlikely to be able to coordinate enough to produce advanced weapons. While its an unideal outcome, its not clear that it would be worse from the israeli perspective, and they are the ones dropping bombs.

> Of course we don't know how this will play out since we don't have any history except for the last 50+ years or so.

There are plenty of examples historically of coups and popular revolutions where the new gov takes over the existing state roughly in-tact. There are also many examples of what you are saying where the country decends into a civil war. If you want to use history as a guide i think you need to analyze things more closely.

[mousethatroared]

And it's larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Both in population and surface area

[JumpCrisscross]

> Iraq and Gaza was an absolute joke compared to what it would take to topple the Iranian militants, militias, and government

It wouldn't be a cake walk. But America could topple the government in Tehran about as easily as it did in Baghdad or, frankly, Kabul. The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't a failure to decapitate the opposing state. It was in filling the vacuum that left.

[msgodel]

Why are we toppling all these foreign governments and creating instability that breads terrorism in places that otherwise have nothing to do with us?

This seems so exceptionally counter productive.

[gspencley]

> Why are we toppling all these foreign governments

I don't want to speak to the other foreign governments, and I think there is a LOT of room for healthy criticism of how the USA handles its foreign policy, past & present.

But to answer the question directly with respects to Iran, specifically: the leadership has been repeatedly chanting "Death To America" for its 45 year history and have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon program. It calls Israel the "Little Satan" and America the "Big Satan." A mantra often repeated: "First we come for the Saturday people, then we go for the Sunday people."

Say what you want about the USA. I'll be the first to join you in criticism of many of it's foreign policy actions, including the 1953 CIA-backed Iranian coup that arguably led to the Islamic revolution in 1979 and got us the Iran we have today. And if people want to express concern for what evils could fill the vacuum if the current regime falls... fair.

But I'm certainly not going to blame any free country for responding to an enemy state vowing to destroy it while actively trying to develop the means to do so. If there is ever any moral justification for going to war - that's it. It's defensive. That's arguably the only justification for going to war.

Feel free to disagree with me about the threat that Iran poses to the western world. Maybe it's all propaganda and overstated. You're welcome to that theory. But this is the answer to the question: "Why should the USA get involved?"

[Buttons840]

> have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon program

The US Director of National Intelligence testified to congress a few weeks ago that no US intelligence agency believes that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb, and that they believed Iran was at least 3 years away from having the ability to build a nuclear bomb even if they tried.

What you are saying directly contradicts what US intelligence agencies have said.

A couple sources: https://jewishinsider.com/2025/03/gabbard-iran-is-not-curren... https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2...

[alephnerd]

> US Director of National Intelligence

The US Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard) has a very public history of backing Assad and Iran during the Syrian Civil War, and any mention of the DNI without mentioning it's currently Tulsi Gabbard is clearly a bad faith discussion.

[Buttons840]

Is there a better representative of the US intelligence agencies than the Director of National Intelligence? Maybe a true Scotsman?

[c0redump]

So basically the DNI says things that you disagree with, and therefore is illegitimate.

[dttze]

Explain how "backing" them has anything to do with what she said about the weapons. Dismissing her because of that is the bad faith.

[dttze]

Not to mention the Ayatollah has had a long standing fatwa against the procurement of nuclear weapons.

[ben_w]

Yeah, and the ten commandments in the New Testament don't give exceptions for "death penalty" and "war"*, that doesn't stop Christians from signing up for the military or even seeing a contradiction.

* on the former, NT has an example of the crowd who want to stone someone, instead being convinced to leave; and the latter NT contains the origin of the phrase "to go the extra mile", which is about helping foreign soldiers occupying your territory and ordering you to help them (Matthew 5:41)

[ngruhn]

No idea whether that estimate is accurate but 3 years doesn't sound long for an existential risk. If a large astroid hits earth in 3 years, I better do something now. Should probably have invaded 10 years ago.

[mousethatroared]

Bibi has been saying that Iran is weeks away from the bomb since the 80s.

Meanwhile, he's the only megalomaniac in the region with a Bomb.

[whodidntante]

So, is Tulsi Gabbard now considered a reliable source of intelligence ?

And that it should be no one's concern about a regime that is stretched for resources yet has over a dozen very expensive facilities working on militarizing nuclear technology that also publicly and repeatedly calls for the destruction of not just Israel but also America ?

[mousethatroared]

This wasn't Tulsi saying it, but the intelligence community going back to the dubbya administration.

Some of us are old enough to remember.

In honor of W. "fool me one, shame on you. Fool me twice? Well you cant fool me twice"

[ben_w]

> It calls Israel the "Little Satan" and America the "Big Satan."

Just to add to this, I briefly worked with an Iranian and asked him if this was serious or a mistranslation*, and he confirmed that it was totally serious.

* the etymology of "satan" ultimately being Hebrew שָׂטָן (satán, “adversary, accuser”: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/שטן#Hebrew), and both Israel and the USA are definitely adversaries of Iran

[mousethatroared]

We dont care about Iran having a nuke any more than we care about Pakistan's or N. Korea.

N. Korea has said mean things to us too.

The only thing we care about is Iran's resources and support for the Palestinians.

[JumpCrisscross]

> only thing we care about is Iran's resources and support for the Palestinians

What’s with the Palestinian distortion effect?

We sanctioned Iran’s oil. And to the degree we consider the Palestinians, it’s in mostly ignoring their interests. (But still caring to learn about them more than the North Koreans’ or Pakistanis’.)

The difference is Pyongyang has behaved rationally. It doesn’t sponsor terror groups across the region. And most importantly, it’s already a nuclear power with the credibly ability to destroy an ally. (Pakistan does the terrorist thing, hence “ally from hell” and the pivot to India, but it at least does a halfway decent job of keeping its proxies from directly targeting Americans in a way Tehran has failed to do with e.g. the Houthis and its proxies in Iraq.)

Iran is none of those things. Most importantly, one of our allies it threatens initiated the attack. If Seoul or even New Delhi initiated a render-safe operation against their enemies, there is a good chance America would at least consider joining to finish the job.

[woooooo]

Iran has behaved pretty rationally IMO.

We killed one of their top generals, unprovoked, 5 years ago. Israel bombed their embassy in Syria a year ago. Both times, they sent telegraphed, calibrated missile barrages that let them deescalate situations they didn't create.

Now we're in a third instance of them being attacked. Who's the irrational party?

(Edit: and in Iraq, we invaded their neighbor while loudly saying "youre next", their actions in Iraq were also rational and calibrated given that context. Bog us down there, deniably, smart move.)

[mousethatroared]

If (Russian ally) Delhi tried a decapitating strike on (US ally, ruled by US patsies) Pakistan we'd loose our shit.

Pray, when has Iran behaved irrationally? Except when trusting us, which Kissinger pointed out is really dumb.

[reillyse]

The USA created the current Iranian regime by installing a puppet and then getting butt hurt when their puppet was ousted. A real freedom for us tyranny for you situation.

Then the USA created the Saddam regime in Iraq to fight the Iranian regime and that went great.

And now the USA is supporting Israel to terrorize the Middle East in their name and with their bombs and that’s going swimmingly too. Top job everyone.

[msgodel]

It seems like an infinite pit we throw money and lives into only to make things worse.

[gerash]

what even is the point other than "the Israel lobby said so"? Creating "liberal democracies" is certainly not it or else an ISIS mercenary wouldn't have been installed in place of Bashar al asad?

US itself is not a representative democracy either.

[figmert]

Well the nearly $900 billion dollars budget the US military has, has to be spent somehow.

[Aloisius]

What puppet did the US install?

[JumpCrisscross]

They’re being dramatic. We installed the Shah [EDIT: as an autocrat] with the ‘53 coup [1]. That was our original sin.

But the Islamic Republic wasn’t an American creation. Neither was Saddam’s Iraq or the Mujahideen or Al Qaeda. We variously facilitated, opposed and ignored these elements, mostly the last. Ignoring the Soviet history in the region, together with the fact that Iranians aren’t automatons, but human beings with agency and preferences, continues this tradition of American fatalism that ignores how complicated (and independent of ourselves) these systems are.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9ta...

[Centigonal]

> the leadership has been repeatedly chanting "Death To America" for its 45 year history

This is a good read: https://www.mypersiancorner.com/death-to-america-explained-o...

The phrase is ugly, but it's how you say "fuck the US government" in a very melodramatic and poetic language where the most common way of calling your friend's baby cute translates to "let me martyr myself for this child."

[jfengel]

I am not an expert in the language or the culture, so I'm willing to accept that as the truth.

Nonetheless... they've had 45 years to figure out what it sounds like to us. Those 45 years started with actual violence, and has continued with various forms of proxy conflict. So I don't think it's 100% on us to de-escalate the situation.

(That said... they had been working on that de-escalation, and we're the ones who threw that in the bin about a decade ago. So I'd say the burden has shifted substantially back in our direction.)

[porridgeraisin]

The reason you guys threw it in the bin is here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad_infiltration_of_Irani...

[whodidntante]

My only quibble with what you said is that this war was started by Iran on 10/7/23. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc - these were all part of the self proclaimed "Axis of Resistance".

People may disagree on the ethics of who is the "right" side, if the war was fought "fairly" and according to the "ethics of war", but you would have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to believe that Hamas and Hezbollah and Houthis were not Iranian proxies armed and funded by Iran and acted independently from Iran's goals.

As a corollary, I do not buy into the idea that this Israel/Iran war was/is being fought (only) because of the nuclear issue. It is being fought because it is the last (hopefully) part of the larger war of Israel vs Axis of Resistance, which can only be resolved through the defeat of either Israel or Iran.

If Israel is defeated, the Muslim world can then go on to fight their Shia vs Sunni war, if Iran is defeated, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Iran in Iraq, and Houthis will basically go away and those nations/territories will need to determine their future, both internally and their relationships with Israel and the Muslim world.

[noworriesnate]

What makes you think Israel is capable of having a decent relationship with its neighbors? They never have before. And they have no need to have a decent relationship because they have the US giving them enormous amounts of money and weapons.

I think the best way to fix Israel is to bring in refugees from an unrelated conflict, like Sudan, and once the Sudanese have a significant minority then Israeli politics won’t be ethnofascist anymore.

[signatoremo]

Israel currently has good relationship with Jordan and Egypt, and since last year, Lebanon and Syria, so all of their neighbors actually.

Did you see any of ME countries helping Iran?

[rdm_blackhole]

> If there is ever any moral justification for going to war - that's it. It's defensive. That's arguably the only justification for going to war.

Russia considers that Ukraine being part of NATO is an existential threat to it's territorial safety. Therefore it has invaded Ukraine. Was that justified then? After all this was a defensive move that was meant to keep a buffer between Russia and NATO.

If all you need to do to justify a war is to have a defensive moral justification and because we agree that the best defense is offense, then ergo war is peace.

[gerash]

Listen to likes of John Mearsheimer. They see things from a crisper perspective without all this propaganda

[ty6853]

I don't pretend this is an argument at all in towards the situation in Iran, so don't quote me as justifying action or inaction there in regards to this, but it is interesting to take note North Korea actually has dozens of real nuclear weapons and the death to America rhetoric and all we seem to do is laugh at them. Of course NK has no real ability to blow up the US, but they could likely nuke or at least obliterate a sizeable piece of ally South Korea no problem.

[gspencley]

That's a very fair point.

I think the difference is that Iran has been actively trying to follow through with its threats and this has been demonstrated through its actions towards an American ally over the past year. This gives reason to believe that Iran's threats are both credible and, while a full-scale war between Iran and the USA might not fare well for Iran ... you don't need to demonstrate that you are capable of wiping out a population or winning a war in order to represent a credible threat. If only one of Iran's missiles manage to land in a densely populated area... people die. And that's enough to warrant a response IMO.

[dttze]

> this has been demonstrated through its actions towards an American ally over the past year.

And what about that ally's actions towards Iran? Like assassinating political and military figures inside the country? Which would traditionally be considered an act of war. If anything, Iran has been too passive.

[1659447091]

> Of course NK has no real ability to blow up the US, but they could likely nuke or at least obliterate a sizeable piece of ally South Korea no problem.

They could hit any number of US bases, they also have ICBMs "estimated to be at least 15,000 km (9,300 mi), allows it to reach targets anywhere in the contiguous United States."[0]

"Kim announced a Five-Year Defense Plan that said the country would field a new nuclear-capable submarine, develop its tactical nuclear weapons, deploy multiple warheads on a single missile, and improve its ICBMs' accuracy, among other goals. The plan includes development of an ICBM with a range of 15,000 km for "preemptive and retaliatory nuclear strike," and ground-based and sea-based solid-fueled ICBMs. Some analysts predict an increase in missile testing this year in order to meet these goals by 2026." [1]

They are also working with Russia now. "Russia is increasingly supporting North Korea’s nuclear status in exchange for Pyongyang’s support to Moscow’s war against Ukraine."[2]

The threat assessment[2] says about Iran: "We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-19

[1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10472

[2] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...

[dralley]

North Koreans are (mostly) not subject to death cult mentality in the same way that the Iranian leadership is. Note: Iranian leadership, not the people.

[chasd00]

The artillery aimed at Seoul was equivalent to nuclear deterrence. Before North Korea had a nuclear bomb it was widely known that any military action against it meant the complete destruction of Seoul. The artillery in place, armed, and staffed was basically equivalent to having nukes so neither the US nor anyone else could stop them from pursuing nuclear weapons.

[snypher]

They still needed a second strike option. Since the MIRV arrived the possibility of the whole artillery being destroyed was getting greater.

[mensetmanusman]

NK isn’t paying people to bomb SK every other week.

[keybored]

On the one hand you have a country which has nuclear weapons with a regional ally that doesn’t want to say whether it has nuclear weapons or not that has in real life couped the other country’s government. On the other hand you have the country which Israel lies about getting nuclear weapons (et tu?) very soon and that says mean things about Israel and the West. Conclusion: there is “certainly” no blame for responding (invading) that other country.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage in healthy criticism of rogue states.

[platevoltage]

I'm willing to bet that the majority of Americans can't connect the dots between the Iraq War and the creation of ISIS.

[ngruhn]

I bet. The middle east is more complicated than quantum mechanics. There are like gazillions of factions, local and foreign. You would think you can roughly group them into Israel+US, Russia, Shia, Sunni. They surely all hate each other. But there are still constantly shifting alliances. At some point Iran (Shia?) was funding ISIS (Sunni?) only to later team up with the US and Israel to fight them. Sometimes all these islamist groups have a dude who looks like the leader but it's actually the guy two levels down who is the real puppet master. And everybody is known under at least three different names all of which are Al-something. I tried to read a book on this but you become this manic investigation board meme guy.

[c0redump]

> Iran funding ISIS

I’ll never understand the mentality of people who confidently yap about things that they don’t even have a basic understanding of. Iran didn’t fund ISIS, they are the ones who defeated it. ISIS was trying to destroy Assads government (Iranian ally), why would Iran fund them.

Seriously impressive level of ignorance and hubris on display here.

[chimineycricket]

Iran did not fund ISIS.

[dralley]

Right, they do fund Sunni Palestinian groups, especially Hamas, but mostly they stick to Shia paramilitaries.

[noworriesnate]

Because 1) America won’t allow nations near Israel to be successful, it’s too much of a threat to our greatest ally and 2) war is incredibly profitable.

[eddythompson80]

> nations near Israel to be successful,

I'm guessing that doesn't include Turkey or the rich oil arab states.

[themgt]

Actually they're already "joking" on Israeli TV that Turkey is next, and AEI is on the case making it clear we may need to go to war to take out Turkey next.

https://x.com/clashreport/status/1935078004230865094

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/israel-iran-war-dry-run-for-a-fut...

[tguvot]

you going to omit that erdogan been threatening israel first ?

[toast0]

A stable Iran seems to be doing a pretty good job of breeding terrorism, too though.

If we're being extremely generous, the goal of regime change would be to bring a new stability with economic prosperity and inclusion as well as more meaningful political inclusion, so as to reduce the amount of marginalized population with nothing to loose that are easy to recruit for terrorism.

Of course, when the nation building fails or is never even tried, it's pretty easy for recruiters to say "look around, they destroyed our country (with bombs or embargoes or tariffs or resource exploitation or offensive media), we have nothing to live for, and it's their fault; let's make them pay"

I don't think you can stop all terrorism, but if you want to put a dent in it, you need to give the broad population hope for prosperity, and you need to fulfill that hope on the regular.

[reillyse]

What if we instead we were just responsible for killing all of their kids, would that work? I could see that working in the US just randomly kill a bunch of peoples kids and that would calm everything down.

[platevoltage]

You've got to be kidding me. The US actively supports and runs interference for the biggest terror state in the Middle East right now. We are also buddy buddy with another country in the Middle East that dismembered one of our journalists and provided most of the 9/11 high jackers.

[fortzi]

IRGC is known for funding and training militant and terrier groups globally. They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel). All the while running for The Bomb. I wouldn’t call the present sutuation stable.

[greiskul]

> known for funding and training militant and terrier groups globally

So does the US.

> They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel)

You are literally calling for the annihilation of their state here.

> All the while running for The Bomb.

Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in war.

There is definitely a cold war going on between Israel and Iran. I'm not sure if it escalating to a hot war would be better. The 20th century Cold War had all the same things you mentioned, with both sides fighting proxy wars, calling for the annihilation of the other side, and had atomic weapons. And I think everyone agrees that the end of the cold war that we had was definitely better than nuclear Armageddon.

And I don't know if the 20th would have been better if only the US had atomic weapons. MAD might have saved millions of lives in both sides.

[trustinmenowpls]

> So does the US.

nope.

> You are literally calling for the annihilation of their state here.

Nope, people are only calling for the unpopular regime to be replaced by a popular one.

> There is definitely a cold war going on between Israel and Iran.

Hezbollah is an actual arm of the IRGC so it's a hot war and has been for 25+ years.

[ty6853]

Nobody is buying this bullshit anymore, we're not going down for your campaign to dupe us into "replacing a popular one" like happened in Iraq when the USA created a power vacuum and then much of it got taken over by ISIS, much of which was left to Kurdish and other local resistance groups to flush out after your deranged "nope. Nope," propaganda of lies military campaign ended.

[msgodel]

Oh no! Mean words!

Anyway we have plenty of people here that hate the US and are far more likely to actually create a problem.

Furthermore I'd argue the deficit spending (a very large portion of which is defense) is a much more serious existential threat.

[reillyse]

The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that there are some psychopaths in charge of American foreign policy and their thinking goes like this.

1) we want to control oil and oil prices because it’s crucial to our bank accounts. 2) if the Middle East unites we will lose control over oil 3) we must make sure they never unite 4) we need to support varying regimes to increase instability in the region. If we keep the Middle East fighting we can continue to extract oil.

Lots has changed since 50s so one would think this strategy would get updated, but it seems it has not.

(Also for the record I think this is abhorrent, but I think some people do think like this)

[c0redump]

Because they are threats to Israel.

[dash2]

Can you give an example since 2003?

[mandevil]

Afghanistan was in the middle of a semi-active civil war when the US joined the fray, and by providing large scale air support to Northern Alliance troops on the ground, the situation changed abruptly. Iraq involved multiple US divisions of troops, which took months to get into position to launch a large scale ground invasion. Libya was in the middle of a very active civil war when the US started Operation Odyssey Dawn(1).

All of those cases involved a whole lot of troops on the ground, which is something that I see as notably missing from any plans discussed so far. Outside troops invading seems like a very bad idea, because Iran's population is about that of those other three combined. Operating sufficient outside country ground troops to topple the existing government would quickly lead to friction between civilians and the outside troops, which would almost certainly quickly turn into a revolt of some kind, and fatally undermine any government they attempted to put in place. Also, it would take a very long time for sufficient US force to topple the Iranian government to arrive in the area, and then either launch a D-Day style opposed amphibious assault or operate from one of Iran's neighbors with sea access (2). But because there is no preexisting Iranian civil war, there is no local source of ground troops either.

I don't think we've ever seen a government toppled by external air-strikes alone. The general consensus from research is that being bombed makes citizens support the government more, not weaken their resolve.

1: It didn't lead to change of government, but Operation Allied Force- the NATO bombing of Serbia helped the Kosovo Liberation Army achieve their independence- again air-power supporting troops on the ground to achieve an aim, not air-power alone. What eventually toppled the government of Serbia was the Bulldozer Revolution a year later, with no outside military force involved.

2: Your choices are not going to be good ones. Iraq? Turkey through Kurdistan? Pakistan?

[JumpCrisscross]

> All of those cases involved a whole lot of troops on the ground, which is something that I see as notably missing from any plans discussed so far

Oh absolutely. I compared it to Kabul and Baghdad (and not Libya) for a reason. There is not a mobilised resistance in Iran.

The lack of boots-on-the-ground plans is why I don’t see us teetering towards Iraq 2.0, but instead the U.S. eventually using bunker busters at Fordo and calling it a day. (To the extent we’re seeing the right recipe “liberation” rhetoric, it’s in respect of domestically deploying the military.)

[alephnerd]

^ This

There will be no nation building component. Israeli leadership has no interest, nor does American leadership. And the Gulf States, Turkiye, Russia and China lack the capacity and/or manpower.

Sadly, I feel Iran will most likely teeter into a Libya or Myanmar style Civil War with the Army, IRGC, Basij, and local police at each others throats in the heartland, and ancillary regions like Iranian Azerbaijan, Iranian Kurdistan, Khuzestan+Ilam, and significant portions of Balochistan and Khorasan becoming de facto autonomous and meddled in by regional powers.

[nine_k]

The thing is that the population of Iran is not being bombed, except a few high-ranking military personnel. It's the nuclear facilities, air defense sites, and some electrical power facilities that have been bombed.

A number of meetings / manifestations of expatriate Iranians happened around the world, supporting the Israeli actions. The current regime earned no love from most of the population, it seems; massive anti-government protests happened in Iran for last few years, sometimes lasting for months.

If there is no civil war and no actual troops on the ground, the regime may still be unstable enough, its pillars like IRGC being paper tigers, and willing to defect. It can still fall. An example: the Soviet regime fell in 1991 within a week, basically without any war, and the USSR split into its formal constituent republics, most of which stayed peaceful since then. Another example: the Portuguese regime fell within a week in 1974, with zero shots fired.

[mandevil]

Governments do fall to internal revolt/collapse regularly. I mean, Iran has done so within the memory of most of its senior leadership! They understand this much better than I do- Khamenei himself played a major role in toppling the Shah. Just generally that doesn't happen while being attacked by other countries air-power, which as a general rule makes populations support their governments rather than start marching in the streets against them.

Thanks to historians, we can understand things like the collapse of the USSR better (my favorite English language book- I am sadly monolingual- would be Plokhy's _The Last Empire_) and see the personal and impersonal forces that ended up tearing the country apart, and doubtless some of those are present in Iran right now. But I personally would not bet on these strikes helping to topple the existing government.

[alephnerd]

I tend to disagree. Iran was already on the verge of a succession crisis, as Khamenei only rose to power by viciously putting down Khomeini's allies after his passing, and the inter-service rivalry between the Army (leaning towards reformers like Khomeini's grandson), IRGC (autonomous), and the Basij (lead by Khamenei's son). This is the forcing function.

Iran had a very violent succession crisis in the late 80s-early 90s, but the titans of the revolution and rallying behind the flag due to the Iran-Iraq war helped ensure some base amount of unity.

There is a vacuum in Iran's elite, as most of the upper and mid-level echelons are those who solidified their fiefdoms in the 1990s.

[GuinansEyebrows]

> The thing is that the population of Iran is not being bombed, except a few high-ranking military personnel. It's the nuclear facilities, air defense sites, and some electrical power facilities that have been bombed.

this is not true. they bombed residential buildings in the capital city of the country. children have died in these bombings.

[Lordarminius]

Baghdad and Kabul had nowhere near the military capabilities of the Iranians who can close shipping lanes, sink US warships and attack military bases and oil installations in the region, in addition to devastating all the major Israeli cities. In the chaos that ensues, the Chinese and Russians would move in and take advantage. The global economy would grind to a halt and America would spiral into a depression that would take at least a decade to recover from.

[tguvot]

how the "devastating all the major israeli cities" going ? or they didn't start yet

[rdm_blackhole]

> It was in filling the vacuum that left.

Maybe this was a question that should have been asked before these regimes were toppled but nobody bothered so here we are. Instead the US and it's allies come in with their big boots and try to give people "democracy" without thinking that maybe this is just not the right thing to do at this time. But we know better right?

As if there aren't enough problems in the US and in Europe, we need to keep involving ourselves with conflicts that mostly do not concern us. This is a conflict in the middle east and the countries of this region should be in charge of trying to find a solution to it.

[candiddevmike]

America really can't afford this right now. We spent _trillions_ on the last middle east operation.

[noisy_boy]

Money has never been a problem for America; it can just create it as per its needs.

[FpUser]

When every country lining up to buy US debt they can print as much money as they wish. Lately however that buying of the US debt does not seem as attractive as it used to be.

[anadem]

I don't think our current administration cares what we can afford

[platevoltage]

America can ALWAYS afford war.

[krapp]

We can totally afford it, DOGE deleted a bazillion dollars worth of waste, so we have plenty of money to burn on another crusade in the Middle East! /s

[v5v3]

Iraq and Afghanistan lacked friends though.

Iranian Regime has strong backing from Brics and others.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Iranian Regime has strong backing from Brics and others

The BRICS meme from a security standpoint is hollower than the financial one.

Russia and China have no interest (the former, ability) in getting enmeshed in another Anglo-Iranian war. Most of the oil travelling through the Strait of Hormuz goes to Chinese refineries; they really don’t want this to escalate. Both would probably make the occupation phase painful for Americans. Like we did for the Soviets. And the Iranians did for us. But that’s again post-regime change, the part we’ve never figured out how to do since the Marshall Plan, and not in the toppling of the regime bit, which we’re ridiculously good at.

The evidence for the above is the current lack of military or intelligence support anyone is providing Iran.

[v5v3]

Not true.

Chinese planes with transponders being turned off are landing in Iran with unknown Cargo on board. (Reported across the news). Iran is supplying Russia with Drones for Ukraine so strategic partner.

Russia recently lost Syria as an ally with the change in government, they will not want to lose Iran to the USA too.

If the West can back Ukraine to the level they have done, then no different for Iran's friends to do the same.

[JumpCrisscross]

Everything you’re describing fits prolonging a guerilla conflict. That is, planning for post collapse influence.

There is really only one thing Iran would sell its soul for right now, and it’s Russian or Chinese troops announcing that they’ve stationed themselves at Fordo. (Thereby turning an attack on the regime’s nuclear ambitions into an attack on a nuclear state.)

> If the West can back Ukraine to the level they have done, then no different for Iran's friends to do the same

Excluding China, orders of magnitude of differences in capability.

[eddythompson80]

They are turning off their transponders?! No way.

[JumpCrisscross]

> They are turning off their transponders?! No way.

Maybe half a dozen transports did so after filing false papers about flying to Luxembourg. Whatever military kit is flying is in in practice inconsequential. It’s more likely shuttling something important out, or deploying surveillance equipment to get SIGINT on B-2s.

[kibibu]

Those things didn't seem very easy.

[seydor]

Tribal?

[fakedang]

LoL exactly what I thought. Persians are extremely proud of being NOT tribal, unlike their Azeri, Afghani, Turkmeni or Tajik neighbours. Most Persians consider themselves proud inheritors of the Achaemenid and Sassanid Empires.

[Aloisius]

There are in fact tribes of Turkmen, Shahsevan, Lurs, Qashqai and various Kurds in Iran.

[fakedang]

Yes, but overall the culture is not tribal, even amongst the Azeris of Iran (who were traditionally the largest tribal group in Iran). Within Iran, they see themselves along ethnic lines.

[mousethatroared]

About 10-20% of the population.

[keybored]

> I know everyone wants to gobble down the campaign about complete air superiority and toppling of leaders, and that WhatsApp may be separating the regime from 52 virgins, but realize this is a propaganda campaign. This initial propaganda only serves to manufacture consent long enough to buy citizens in to blood so they can't back out. We're in the process of being tricked.

Everyone wants to gobble down... I.e. here’s another invasion war but it’s our ally this time so it’s good actually. They’re gonna dezanify^W de-islamism Iran.