[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.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

The DNI is by law [0] the head of the intelligence community; the role was created to separate that function from the CIA Director (formerly, "Director of Central Intelligence"), who previously was the head of the intelligence community as well as the head of one of the major constituent agencies within that community. The CIA, FBI, and NSA or components of the intelligence community, not "competitors" with the DNI.

(And all of those are executive branch positions, so not in any hierarchy "on the Hill", which is a metonym for the Legislative branch because of the location of the Capitol complex on Capitol hill.)

[0] 50 U.S. Code § 3023(b)(1) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President, the Director of National Intelligence shall— (1) serve as head of the intelligence community; (2) act as the principal adviser to the President, to the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to the national security; and (3) consistent with section 1018 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, oversee and direct the implementation of the National Intelligence Program. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3023

[alephnerd]

By law sure, but in action the DNI has little-to-no staffing, and the heads of the other agencies are represented in the NSC and JCS, so the DNI tends to be an afterthought.

> which is a metonym for the Legislative branch because of the location of the Capitol complex on Capitol hill.

IK. I used to work there. It is the general denonym for working in either the Executive or Legislative.

> And all of those are executive branch positions, so not in any hierarchy "on the Hill"

Strongly disagree from personal experience. Just like any organization, resourcing gives certain groups or agencies more heft and leeway than others.

[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.

[ben_w]

"Ayatollah" is more like "Bishop" in this analogy. Bishop of Rome doesn't like AI, news reports this, nothing changes.

[dttze]

To be frank, you are ignorant on the topic and should do more research. This isn't the Catholic Church; he is the supreme leader of Iran and the commander in chief of their military. What he says goes.

[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?

[mousethatroared]

I thought I implied that I don't care.

[noworriesnate]

The obvious solution is to get Israel to give up nukes in exchange for Iran stopping its nuclear program. I think that would everyone happy except the Israelis who want to murder people without repercussion.

[ngruhn]

Right. You just wanna see Israel burn either way.

[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.

[Buttons840]

If the intelligence community is not trust worthy, then upon what are you basing the claims in your post?

[whodidntante]

There is quite a lot of info from many diverse sources. Even assuming a lot of misinformation or incorrect information, there is just too much to say there is nothing here.

Common sense also needs to take into account that Iran already does have a working civilian reactor, and its fuel is supplied by Russia. Given the state of Iran's economy, there is no rational reason for it to be spending vast sums to build so many facilities simply to supply fuel to a reactor that is already supplied by someone else. They would be far better off spending their much needed resources building additional civilian reactors.

Is Iran close to producing an actual bomb ? Don't know. Is Iran investing huge sums to produce weapons grade nuclear material ? There is quite a lot of information to indicate that this is so, and there is only one reason to do this - to produce a nuclear bomb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran

Long list of nuclear sites, cross referenced from many diverse sources. Assume half is misinformation, there is a lot of evidence of a wide ranging program

https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/analysis-of-iaea...

Analysis of the many IAEI reports. I am not sure of the reputation of the authors, but I have read through similar findings from different sources.

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/12/nx-s1-5431395/iran-nuclear-en...

"Iran isn't complying with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years" from an IAEI report, reported by NPR

[gerash]

So the intelligence community doesn't know as much as what you heard on TV?

[whodidntante]

I watch TV for entertainment, not news I read from different and often conflicting sources for information, for whatever that is worth I draw my own conclusions, for whatever they are worth, which sometimes change over time

I believe that Iran is and has been trying very hard to produce enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. I do not know how close they are to an actual bomb, but I also do not believe the technical know how is beyond them, they have smart people, funding, and a technology infrastructure to make it happen. The hard part is the enriched uranium.

I also do not believe that Iran getting close to a bomb is the real reason for Israel's current offensive. Neither do I believe that Israel "acted alone", the US is complicit. Neither do I believe that Hamas and Hezbollah acted alone, Iran is complicit. The past 20 months has always been about Israel/Iran and US/Russia/China.

You may believe differently.

[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 :)

[mousethatroared]

It's been the assessment of three intelligence community going back decades.

Myself, I think they already have a bomb. Or actually don't want it for moral reasons. There is no universe where Pakistan and N. Korea have it and they're "working on it"

[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.

[woooooo]

They were funding the Houthis for what, 10 years before the current fracas? And then the Houthis made peace pretty quickly.

Their big picture strategic posture WAS to try and have a deal with us and normalize, but we've made it clear that we won't have that. Nurturing a bunch of proxies in the region is kind of their only option if they want to have allies.

[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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> new trend of defending American Imperialism by claiming that the other side doesn’t recognize the human beingness of the Other

It’s not defending or supporting but pointing out that not every foreign policy choice made on the planet is a result of our actions. There is a mixture of culpability, credit and thus obligation to fix things.

And I’m not going off on a humanistic arc. The criticism is in line with that of Big Man historical models, or conspiratorial ones involving all-knowing shadow governments. These models are simpler to apply than reality, which involves imperfect (and changing) actors acting through the fogs of war and history.

[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.

[JumpCrisscross]

Backed actively, not caused by [1]. (And then promptly abandoned by Johnson.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/17_July_Revolution

[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.

[rKarpinski]

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

Operation Ajax

[JumpCrisscross]

> Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of the Imperial State of Iran in 1941

Sorry, you’re correct. We installed him as an autocrat in ‘53.

[Aloisius]

He already had immense power prior to the coup. At best, his autocratic power was strengthened. Calling him installed by the US is a misrepresentation.

Iran was not a British-style constitutional monarchy. The Shah was not a ceremonial position. His father ruled with even more power than he did. He was just an absentee ruler for the first part of his rule until someone tried to assassinate him.

Never mind that Prime Minister Mosaddegh had dissolved parliament and had been ruling by decree for a year also acted as an autocrat. Even his own party turned against him for abuse of power.

At best, one could argue the British installed the Shah. They are, after all, the people who made him Shah in the first place.

[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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Imagine if someone installed a puppet king in the USA to exploit the resources of the US for their gain

Literally the colonial governors.

> it’s still around because the only other option is being a puppet of the US

Iran didn’t have to become a hardline theocracy, or a state sponsor of terror, or a nuclear pariah. The IRGC didn’t have to be corrupt and autocratic [1].

The tragedy of the present is it still doesn’t have to be. And while we contributed to the malaise that gave rise to the Islamic Republic (and continue to contribute to its geopolitical insecurity), it’s a step too far to say we caused it.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_th...

[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.

[porridgeraisin]

> I'd understand if it showed that Iran was failing to live up to the JCPOA

But it does show that, from the wiki:

According to journalist Yonah Jeremy Bob and nuclear expert Jeffrey Lewis, much of the key contents were already reported in past IAEA reports. However, the trove provided more clarity about Iran's specific goals for its arsenal,[12] and it proved that Iran violated the JCPOA, which prohibited Iran from engaging in any research and development activity and required full disclosure of all of Iran's nuclear program, including documentation

> can't follow

Actually it is hard to follow! Both governments made it as if because the evidence was found, US withdrew from the pact. However, the operation to gather the evidence was launched so as to give the US a valid reason to withdraw from the pact. The cause-effect is the other way around. Of course, everyone suspected that Iran wasn't keeping up the promise with or without evidence anyways. The evidence was needed solely to give the US president a political reason to dump a deal set by his predecessor.

[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.

[dttze]

> 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.

So you think the US doesn't have a right to exist?

[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.