[Wytwwww]

> with western countries also openly declaring their intent to destabilize Iran

As opposed to standing idly by when the regime 'stabilizes' the country by murdering thousands of people? It's well past the stage where non violent protest or resistance stopped being a viable option..

[pydry]

>As opposed to standing idly by when the regime 'stabilizes' the country by murdering thousands of people?

Do you demand an invasion of Israel? Because your moral principles seem to demand an invasion and subjugation of Israel.

[JumpCrisscross]

> your moral principles seem to demand an invasion and subjugation of Israel

There is absolutely no requirement for consistency in geopolitics. Advocating for a position on e.g. Gaza or Iran isn't undermined because that person isn't expending equal efforts on injustice in another theatre.

[roughly]

> There is absolutely no requirement for consistency in geopolitics.

There is in morality, though. The US is a state, but you are a person.

[pydry]

If your modus operandi is simply that of a thug then no, there is not.

[justsomehnguy]

Dear American, kindly solve your own internal issues first and then - maybe - you can talk on how to "help" some other countries on the literal other side of the world TYM.

[jazz9k]

I'm cool with that. Let them fight their own battles...but also don't ever ask or expect the US to help.

The problem with your stance is that too many people want it both ways: They don't want the US to intervene, but then also want support in terms of money and special treatment for people emigrating from these countries (and blame the US for the deaths that occur for a terrible government).

[watwut]

Like USA literally abandomed allies and those who helped it in countries like Afghanistan and Iran. Literally betreyed them and put them in danger.

What special treatment are you talking about, really.

[don_esteban]

You know, maybe it would be just enough if you do not actively work on making their life miserable (sanctions and inciting instability).

There were almost no Syrian refugees before operation Timber-Sycamore. Thank you USA, our dear friend and freedom-sharing soulmate, for unnecessary refugee crisis in Europe (and another one from Ukraine). With friends like that, who needs enemies. Also, as the above two examples (and Biden's Inflation reduction act, and Nuland's 'f*k Europe'), it is not a Trump thing, its USA thing.

[santoshalper]

Not really. We absolutely have the option to let things play out in Iran and refuse to intervene. There are many regimes in Africa that are as bad or worse than Iran. We seem to have little interest in "regime change" there. You should think about why not.

[Wytwwww]

Well it's not black and white. Sometimes doing the right thing even if you have ulterior motives is better than doing nothing.

Africa is tricky due to historical reasons, though. Any western power that would intervene there without the explicit invitation of the local government would be accused of neo-colonialism etc.

[don_esteban]

You know, doing the Syria and Libya (and Iraq and Afghanistan) thing was the 'right thing', right?

Do you really believe that after the violent regime change Iran will become the beacon of prosperity in the ME?

Yes, I believe if the things are really out of hands (like Khmer rouge in Kambodia), external intervention is warranted.

That can be done against small/weak states where the result can be achieved fast and without too much bloodshed (compared to what is already going on), and when agreed on by UN. Will most definitely need boots on the ground.

It is an entirely different matter against a 90million vast state like Iran. Note that boots on the ground is not in the cards, and most probably will never be. The approach is 'bomb and hope'. Which guarantees misery and bloodshed of Iranian blood. And if the result is fall of the ayatollah regime, and replaced by nationalists with socialistic tendencies, that would not really cooperate with USA (= sell oil rights and totally dismantle their military) then what? Bomb more? How can you honestly believe this is the best for Iranian people?

[mupuff1234]

Because those countries are not trying to become a global power, with potential nuclear weapon, ICBM and drone capabilities along with a strategic location?

And all while making "death to america" part of their national slogan.

[hunterpayne]

Those African regimes don't spend billions a year to promote and fund terrorism in other countries. Remember kids, you can kill millions of your own people (Stalin, Mao, etc) and nobody will care. Heck, some will even celebrate you. But don't mess with people in another country, otherwise outsiders will get involved. Iran is the main source of violence and terrorism in the most violent part of the world. Maybe, just maybe your fake moralizing isn't helping.

[mikkupikku]

Iran has committed or contributed to virtually zero terrorism in America. The American people have no legitimate beef with Iran, America is just acting as Israel's rabid attack dog.

[breppp]

there is quite a beef going on between America and Iran if you haven't noticed, such as taking an entire embassy as hostages or killing a whole lot of US troops in Iraq and Lebanon among other things

[philwelch]

How many of those African regimes sponsor terrorism and piracy against Americans, or adopt “death to America” as a motto?

[mikkupikku]

Iran occasionally attacks Americans in the region or abroad generally, but they don't attack Americans in America despite all of their "death to America" rhetoric (which they are more than entitled to.) If you add up who's fucking with who and who's being fucked with, the imbalance between America and Iran is enormous.

[breppp]

recent examples

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/manssor-arbabsiar-se...

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/member-irans-islamic...