[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?

[alephnerd]

At this moment no. Most administrative and strategy positions for Intel and Foreign Service seats have remained unconfirmed. Maybe the head of the CIA - John Ratcliffe, an avowed Iran+China Hawk - but this administration is hard to read given how disjointed and domestic-driven decisionmaking is.

Furthermore, the DNI is at the lowest rung of the intel hierarchy on the Hill, as it is a post-9/11 invention, and faces inter-service competition from the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

[c0redump]

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

[alephnerd]

No. It's because she has been frozen out by the Trump admin for weeks now - as was seen with the fact that she was not invited to the Camp David but the other Intel heads were to discuss the Iran crisis when Netanyahu informed the admin about the then imminent strikes [0] - and the role of DNI is itself on the chopping block to be merged as part of Project 2025 (one of the few things I agree with them about - the DNI is a redundant role that was only developed during 9/11, and has been made redundant by the NSC and fusion centers).

[0] - https://www.axios.com/2025/06/10/trump-camp-david-iran-gaza-...

[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)

[dttze]

Just because most Christians are hypocrites that worship Mammon doesn't mean the Ayatollah is.

[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.

[ngruhn]

so you think they're not trying to get a nuke?

[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"

[whodidntante]

I think this is quite different than Iraq. We know Iran has many sites were they are developing nuclear technology, sites that they not only do they not let inspections happen, but that are literally buried deep in the ground. We also know they are acquiring or have acquired the technology to enrich to weapons grade, and they themselves have said they will continue to enrich beyond what a civilian program needs.

In other words, this is not a civilian energy program.

Maybe they can build a bomb in 1 month, maybe three years. You may not agree whether or not action should be taken, but I do not see that agreement/disagreement based on the difference.

In any case, our "intelligence" community has lost a lot of credibility, and has been politicized for decades. I would not bet my life, let alone an entire nation, on what they have to say.

[GuinansEyebrows]

i'm not going to lie, though - when i read that elsewhere this morning, the first thing i thought was "i wonder if that 'intelligence' came from chatgpt as well?" [0]

[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbard-admits-to-asking... - forgive the crappy source, i'm not super serious about this line of discussion :)

[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.)

[JumpCrisscross]

> Iran has behaved pretty rationally IMO

Tactically, in this war with Israel, and broadly since October 7th, I agree.

Strategically, by putting themselves in a position where they're sending heavy munitions to e.g. the Houthis so they can take pot shots at U.S. warships, no. That's destabilising in a way that frankly the Kims have never been.

[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.

[JumpCrisscross]

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

We'd be irritated if we weren't consulted, but not much more than that. India isn't a whole-hog Russian ally, they just buy weapons from Russians among others. (Increasingly, others.)

Note, for instance, how the U.S. is keeping an arms length from the ongoing Indus waters dispute. Or how the U.S. across two administrations has basically turned a blind eye to India importing Russian and Iranian oil while threatening secondary sanctions when China does the same thing.

Also, I said render-safe operation. Not a decapitating strike. The former is what Israel has so far done. Even Trump objected to the latter in Iran (so far).

> when has Iran behaved irrationally?

Continuing to arm the Houthis after they targeted U.S. warships was dumb. Hell, the entire proxy war through terrorist organisations nonsense is dumb; the proximate cause of this entire mess is Hamas and the Sinwar brothers' October 7th genius move.

None of that is a reason for America to go to war with the IRGC. But it's a good reason for treating them differently from Pyongyang and Islamabad. (Underlined, again, by the difference between a threshold nuclear state whose missile capabilities and air defences have been defanged and an actual nuclear state.)

[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.

[pcthrowaway]

Well there is oil there too

[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...

[keybored]

I like this new trend of defending American Imperialism by claiming that the other side doesn’t recognize the human beingness of the Other.

[dragonwriter]

> But the Islamic Republic wasn’t an American creation. Neither was Saddam’s Iraq

Saddam's Iraq was, though; Saddam's rise to power in Iraq was backed actively by the US because he was seen as a useful anti-Communist, and once in power he was backed by the US government (to the point of rushing Donald Rumsfeld out as Reagan's special envoy to assure both Saddam and the world of our support for him after he used chemical weapons) in its long war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s.

[Aloisius]

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of the Imperial State of Iran in 1941, succeeding his father after the British forced him out.

I'm unsure as to how the US installed him in 1953. He had been Shah for 11 years.

[reillyse]

If describing events that took place is being dramatic , then I guess so?

Imagine if someone installed a puppet king in the USA to exploit the resources of the US for their gain, would you think that would be dramatic?

As for the Islamic revolution, it was a reaction to being colonized and subjugated, and I would argue it’s still around because the only other option is being a puppet of the US.

[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...

[jfengel]

We withdrew because of information that was already 15 years out of date?

I'd understand if it showed that Iran was failing to live up to the JCPOA. But to withdraw based on what it had been doing back in 1999-2003, a decade before the agreement? That, I can't follow.

[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.

[gspencley]

> And what about that ally's actions towards Iran?

I'm going to share a personal world view. Some may find this controversial or strongly disagree with this world view and that's fine. This is my opinion, not yours.

What gives a nation-state legitimacy is how well adheres to what is, in my personal opinion, the only moral justification for having a government in the first place: the protection of individual rights.

Human beings have two fundamental ways that we can deal with each other: reason/diplomacy or force.

When reason is chosen, life flourishes. People live together peacefully and we create things, start businesses & families and build communities and thrive.

When force is chosen we get war, destruction, poverty, misery and death. We get gangs, thugs and instability.

The need for a government comes from this dichotomy. Government exists, fundamentally, to remove the element of force from civil existence.

My definition of liberty is "An environment in which all interpersonal relations are consensual."

No country, even the freest in the world today, adheres to this principle perfectly. But we can certainly say that some do it better than others. We can even say that some do it a HELL OF A LOT better than others to the point where there is no rational basis for comparison.

Therefore, the question "And what about that ally's actions towards Iran?" places Israel and Iran on equal moral footing.

I reject that wholeheartedly.

On the one hand you have a nation state that is a liberal democracy. It's not perfect, but people can live and pursue their lives there in relative peace and freedom. You can believe what you want to. Live your life as an LGBT+ individual without interference. Start a business. Own property. Have a family and pretty much do what you want with your one and only shot at this life.

On the other hand you have a religious theocracy that murders women for not covering their hair and throws LGBT+ people off of rooftops and executes people just for criticizing the government.

So, what ABOUT Israel's actions towards Iran, exactly?

To point the finger at a free country taking action against a dictatorship is to suggest that that dictatorship has rights.

It doesn't.

The entire basis for a country's right to exist is the recognition and protection of rights. You can't, on the one hand, say "I have the right to exist and to defend myself" while routinely infringing on the rights of your own citizens. You can't violate peoples' rights and then go and hide behind the concept of rights. That concept is based on the mutual recognition, respect and value for reason and diplomacy over force.

[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 ?

[tguvot]

narrator yes, he will omit that president threatens another country but will make a big deal out of host on tv show

Turkey's president has vowed to "liberate Al-Aqsa mosque" from Israel https://www.newarab.com/news/hagia-sophia-resurrection-paves...

Turkish President Erdogan did not hesitate to issue a rare threat to Israel in a party rally, speaking on the ongoing war in Gaza: 'Perhaps we will invade just like we entered Karabakh and Libya' https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/levant-turkey/art...

[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.