| HN Mirror

> find those people who make your policy decisions

Genuine question: who put Iran in their policy portfolio?

jacquesm 116 days ago

AIPAC is a thing...

And now of course you're going to label me an AIPAC nutter, but in this particular case I think the evidence is fairly plain given the collaboration between the two countries on this. If Israel had done this by their lonesome or if the US had not involved Israel then you could make the case that they reached this point independently, right now it looks to me as if collusion is a 100% certainty and that the US is executing a foreign policy that will not benefit it but that will benefit Israel. It also makes me wonder whether this will end up as a Venzuela re-run where the top names change but everything else remains the same, just with US companies the beneficiaries of the oil, which is, besides policy the main driver behind these things anyway.

csomar 116 days ago

There is no comparison between Iran and Venezuela. Maduro had Cuban guards because his people seem to dislike him more than the US; his administration included. Also Maduro is hated by both neighboring countries elites and peasants. Situation couldn’t be more different in Iran, there are hundreds of thousands of committed supporters in Iran and Arabic countries (watch some videos where the Arabs celebrates the strikes at their own countries)

Also in power balance, Venezuela is a joke militarily. Iran has the capacity to end calm life in the GCC and possibly disrupt oil flows. Really an orange and apple comparison. Case in point today, Iran was able to project its missile to several countries in a couple hours.

> Iran has the capacity to end calm life in the GCC and possibly disrupt oil flows

I'm genuinely surprised the mines haven't rolled out, to the point that I believe they won't be. (They were–in the initial strikes–destroyed or incapacitated, or they never existed.)

> Iran was able to project its missile to several countries in a couple hours

To minimal effect. And every launch exposes a missile and firing team to American and Israeli jets flyig in uncontested airspace.

chunky1994 116 days ago

There is credible reporting (Reuters etc.) that ships are being turned around, so it does appear that the mines (or at least threat thereof) have been deployed. Either way, as long as the threat of sinking is alive the strait is uninsurable and is for all practical purposes closed.

> ships are being turned around, so it does appear that the mines (or at least threat thereof) have been deployed

I'd assume, until further evidence, it's because the Strait is an active war zone.

jacquesm 116 days ago

Agreed that you can't compare Venezuela and Iran. But I challenge you to check which are the top three countries in the world by oil reserves.

Israel needs it, Trump wants it, this was going to happen either now or next year. The potential for escalation is massive and I sincerely hope that it will not. Iran is a problem, but Israel is also a problem and the United States is becoming a bigger problem every day. It would be nice if the people in charge of this planet could hold back from throwing matches into the powder kegs for a while.

csomar 116 days ago

Reserves are irrelevant, you can’t pump oil from the ground at a moment notice and building the infrastructure requires long-term stability especially for oil infrastructure which is large and hard to protect. Iran does x4 times the volume of Venezuela in oil and x10 in gas.

The issue with Iran is that it’s selling energy outside of the US system. This was less of an issue 20 years ago when the persians needed to funnel the money back to the Western system at a cost so that they can access world trade. The situation changed today as they can mostly survive on China imports and completely bypass the US financial system. Iran has half the exports (in total value!) of Tunisia at x8-9 the population. Something doesn’t add up.

> It would be nice if the people in charge of this planet could hold back from throwing matches into the powder kegs for a while

That’s not how the world works. The relative peace of the last 20 years or so was mostly because US hegemony was uncontested. This might be no longer the case. Someone in the far East will be watching for opportunities.

jacquesm 116 days ago

> Reserves are irrelevant, you can’t pump oil from the ground at a moment notice and building the infrastructure requires long-term stability especially for oil infrastructure which is large and hard to protect.

Who says these are rational actors. I think it is a bit much for coincidence.

> Iran does x4 times the volume of Venezuela in oil and x10 in gas.

Until yesterday. We'll see whether their infrastructure is going to survive this war.

> The issue with Iran is that it’s selling energy outside of the US system.

I'm well aware of that.

> This was less of an issue 20 years ago when the persians needed to funnel the money back to the Western system at a cost so that they can access world trade. The situation changed today as they can mostly survive on China imports and completely bypass the US financial system. Iran has half the exports (in total value!) of Tunisia at x8-9 the population. Something doesn’t add up.

What doesn't add up is that there are a lot of parties that would like to see regime change in Iran, including a lot of Iranians. The question always is whether the fire that you light remains contained or not and Iran is very much not like Venezuela in that sense.

> That’s not how the world works.

I'm well aware of that too. But that doesn't change how I feel about it.

> The relative peace of the last 20 years or so was mostly because US hegemony was uncontested. This might be no longer the case.

In no small part because of the idiot-in-charge.

> Someone in the far East will be watching for opportunities.

And that's precisely why I think there is a massive potential for escalation here.

gizajob 116 days ago

Make a genuine guess…

galangalalgol 116 days ago

The current Israeli government obviously has a great deal of influence in the US government. That much is not conspiracy theory. The evangelicals involved in project 2025 have a very real interest in middle eastern conflict from an ideological standpoint. If you want a cynical follow the money villain look no farther than Al Saud and friends. Also, this weakens Russia and further restricts oil reaching China from anywhere. Every oil feed reaching China over water is at this point being curtailed. Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough interests aligned.

The US president hasn't required a new war resolution since Afghanistan. They each keep stretching it farther and farther. It cannot be rescinded without a veto-proof majority. If there was a veto proof majority willing to stand up to the executive, a conviction and removal would have already occurred.

The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy. It is also worth noting that it only takes senators receiving the votes of <7% of the total population to filibuster all legislation, prevent overriding any vetos, and halt all impeachment trials. The fact it has looked like a democracy for so long is astounding.

[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-117sdoc1/pdf/CDOC-1...

> Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough interests aligned

Correct. But interests need to be animated to have power. Who was arguing that this should be a priority, and a priority now, who is familiar in the White House?

> The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy

This is nonsense.

> halt all impeachment trials

False. Senate Rule 193 sets time limits on debate for impeachment trials [1].

galangalalgol 116 days ago

You seem to have a singular villain ready to point at. I do not see it. The president reportedly thinks whatever the last person to speak said. So are you proposing a mastermind or simply a catalyst?

As far as vdem goes, Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy status.

> Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy status

I mean, that's interesting from a political theoretical perspective. And if you want to put sacred meaning into it, sure. I'm not sure most people would take a decade-old Swedish institute as a harbinger of whether or not America is a demoracy too seriously (versus other sources, to be clear).

I was hoping someone serious (versus the everything is AIPAC nutters) had put thought into it.

Rubio and Walz have been Iran hawks. But I’m not yet convinced they were unilateral. Instead, it looks like a Rice-Powell alignment of vague interests with enough groupthink that dissenters weren't in the room.

oldnetguy 116 days ago

I see this as Trump going after governments that were close to Russia and China. Which is why he is going after Iran, Venezuela and Cuba.

Also there are many countries in the middle east that we are friends with which would be happy if Iran falls.

bell-cot 116 days ago

> ...would be happy if Iran falls.

Literally, perhaps true...at least initially. But:

- Take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out for the U.S. and its regional friends.

- Iran has 92 million people, very deep issues with being able to support that large a population, and very long borders. If things really went to crap there, it could produce tens of millions of desperate refugees.

> take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out

This is an immensely risky operation. But part of the reason for Iraq being a shitshow was De-Ba'athification. You don't need to clean house to effect regime change. My guess would be we're hoping someone in the IRGC disappears Khamenei and a few senior commanders and then makes a call to Geneva.

arw0n 116 days ago

This is assuming a coherent national security strategy, which is unlikely. We know a lot of generals disagree with the attack on Iran, and none of the geopolitical experts I trust think it is a good idea, be they conservative, realist, liberal, leftist or something else.

There's a number of reasons this is happening now that I think are more plausible than American interest:

- Saudis want Iran weak as they are primary geopolitical rivals. There are deep ties between the Saudi dynasty and the Trump dynasty. Without Iranian support, the Houthis will have a much tougher time. (Although they should not be underestimated regardless. They are not an Iranian proxy, but an ally, and field one of the strongest armies in the whole region.)

- Israel wants Iran weak, and pro-zionism is a strong wedge in American politics. Again, there's also a lot of personal business interests involved. Iranian allies and proxies are the chief causes of grief for Israel's expansionist agenda, and a very credible threat to their national security.

- This war conveniently moves the headlines away from a faltering economy, the Epstein files, and ICE overreach. There's probably hope that it will improve chances with the 'war president bonus' in the mid-terms. It could also be a convenient cover for and excuse to increase rigging in the elections.

Expecting positive regime change after bombing a school full of little girls is... naive. This is not how you turn an enemy into a friend.

oldnetguy 116 days ago

I know a lot of Americans who remember 1979 and don't care if they are ever friends again. I agree, I also don't think this is a coherent national security strategy.

mrighele 116 days ago

The countries in middle east want Iran to be weak, not to fall.

I think that from the point of the neighbouring countries, Iran is fine as it is. Israel and the USA keep it in check, it is under sanctions, which are both beneficial for its adversaries.

If the regime in Iran were to fall, first of all you would have repercussions on the neighbors, (refugees and the like), and instability. But also, in the longer run, the chance of a more better government, which could make the country stronger than it is.

nostrademons 116 days ago

The rumor I heard was that high-level Pentagon generals had subtly suggested that Trump target Iran. The reason was to distract his attention from Greenland. Logic goes that if you have a reality TV star who built his brand on being a tough guy in the White House, it's far better that he attack a theocratic dictatorship that funds a host of terrorist organizations and whose country is already on the verge of collapse than a NATO ally and fellow democracy that didn't do anything to us.

qup 116 days ago

He's been talking about Iran since 2011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris

underlipton 116 days ago

byproxy 116 days ago

From where did you hear this rumor?

nostrademons 116 days ago

Was a news article from a reputable source (Reuters or PBS?), around the time of the Greenland flap in early January, but Google Search now sucks and the results are all polluted with news articles from the strikes today so I wasn't able to find it again.

Braxton1980 116 days ago

The voters

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpgvg

ThagH 116 days ago

Indeed, the permanent bureaucracies and think tanks have advised all administrations:

This is bipartisan. The long term goals were to start with Libya, Iraq, Syria and then Iran. The latter two required Russia to be tied up in another conflict.

They don't explicitly put Iran in their portfolio because for Reality TV it is better to be a peace lover.

Now, undoubtedly the Democrats will pretend to complain, but Schumer and Pelosi want this, too.

[I am expanding on your comment, not trying to contradict anything.]

coldtea 116 days ago

>I don't want to insult you but your president is a populist and a TV personality. He is not a policy maker, he is more like an actor.

All of them are, even those that haven't had a show on TV.

nixon_why69 116 days ago

I'm not disagreeing with you but "Dept of War" is ENTIRELY a cosmetic change. It's literally just a name. There are people, mostly with desk jobs, who really want to feel like badasses and they really want the Dept of War. The real human consequences of this are unimportant to them and sadly unimportant to the rest of us also.

delichon 116 days ago

Cosmetic changes are frequently decisive in politics. "literally just a name" discounts the genuine power of names.

nixon_why69 116 days ago

Agreed 100%

avaer 116 days ago

If you go to https://www.war.gov/ it says Department of War. The person in charge calls himself the Secretary of War. Warfighters are being sent into Iran. Presumably to engage in warfare. People are gonna die.

What's cosmetic about this?

delichon 116 days ago

Agree, essentially the Department of War is the Department of Defense with a little less makeup.

WrongAssumption 116 days ago

Seems more accurate to me. Department of Defense was the one that seemed like a euphemism.

lo_zamoyski 116 days ago

It's cosmetic because it is business as usual.

And the DoW was the original name from 1789 to 1947.

pfannkuchen 116 days ago

Wasn’t it originally called the department of war also? If anything “department of defense” was doublespeak, as it was already primarily for war.

lo_zamoyski 116 days ago

Indeed it was, from 1789 to 1947. It was then changed to Departments of Army and Air Force, later the National Military Establishment, and finally the Department of Defense in 1949.

trenning 116 days ago

Ukraine’s TV personality leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy seems to be doing alright. Also went into war, but not of their own doing, and he has been measured, insightful, aware, throughout this whole war.

There’s more to it than Trump being a TV show personality. Far too complex and insidious than a simple quip.

thiagoharry 116 days ago

I don't think the American people can change their country's policy oriented toward a constant state of war, aggression, and invasions of other countries under the current system. This is a constant state policy, regardless of the party or the president. So it can be said that the United States is not a democracy. Money and capital rule, not the people.This can only be changed by a fundamental shift that empowers people over capital.

Of course, I agree that Trump is worse because, by removing the mask of civility and attacking others without first bothering to create propaganda and a narrative about how it is for the greater good and justice, he made the plundering and crimes faster and more efficient.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elec...

> don't think the American people can change their country's policy oriented toward a constant state of war, aggression, and invasions of other countries under the current system

Of course we can. People disagreeing with you doesn't mean they don't exist.

These are the Senate seats in play this cycle [1]. How many of those do you think would be flipped based on any foreign policy item?

If you're on this thread you pay attention to foreign policy. The notion that someone doesn't–not isn't informed, but literally doesn't to any degree–is almost more foreign than the strangest countries we read about. But the truth is most Americans have never ranked any foreign policy item as being in their top three issues since the Vietnam War.

We could change it if we wanted to. We don't because it's not personally pertinent or worse, it's boring. (And, I'd argue, because a lot of foreign-policy oriented activists are preaching for the choir versus trying to actually effect change.)

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...

somenameforme 116 days ago

Americans ranked foreign policy as the third most relevant issue for them in 2016, tied with immigration. [1] It's disingenuous to ignore that both parties have traditionally had mostly the same foreign policy stance. So you're voting for forever war, or forever war. How can it be a deciding factor for voters in this context?

But 2016 was different because Trump was the first candidate in some time to run on something even vaguely flirting with being anti-war, as he actively called out the endless wars of the political establishment, and argued that America first should not involve us wasting our money bombing countries half-way around the world. It was a relatively weak position but even that was enough to get 13% of voters to declare foreign policy as their key issue, tied with immigration. And Trump ended up winning their vote by an 18 point margin.

Anti-war is one of the relatively large number of issues that Americans largely agree on, but the political establishment makes it impossible to vote for, because you'll never find a mainstream candidate running on a platform that aligns with public interest. So for instance 84% of Americans think that "the American military should be used only as a last resort", that Congressional approval should be required for military action, and so on. [2]

[2] - https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/new-poll-shows-pub...

> 84% of Americans think that "the American military should be used only as a last resort", that Congressional approval should be required for military action, and so on

In general, yes. What fraction of Trump voters do you think would agree that Trump should face any consequences for bypassing the Congress?

somenameforme 116 days ago

Or Obama's, or Bush's, or Clinton's? By the time somebody is in office and engaging in a pro-war platform, his supporters will look the other way. Even moreso in modern American politics where people are often no longer even voting for people they like, but for people they loathe less than the alternative. It's why electoral choice, which is largely absent in America, is so critical for the functioning of a healthy system.

shadowgovt 116 days ago

That's assuming the people don't vote for this because they want this.

Many Americans have a hero complex. Their national mythology post World War II includes them being the "good guys" against the "bad guys." That mythology needs a bad guy.

Trump ran on "no wars" because he was going to spend all his focus on America instead of burning taxpayer money dropping bombs overseas. I'm sure some people voted for him at least in part for that reason. You can argue that they should have known he was liar, but there is support for it. Also, with the new concentration camps, the soldiers in our streets, and the nazi salutes I'm not sure the whole "good guys" against the "bad guys" narrative is something trump voters care about at all. They seem pretty comfortable playing the "bad guys" part anyway.

shadowgovt 116 days ago

They believe they are the good guys.

But then, history shows this sort always do.

armada651 116 days ago

The moment they made that name change and stated their expansionist agenda it finally became clear to me that this wasn't just MAGA anymore, this was actual fascism.

Whether you think the current targets are legitimate or not, the fact that the U.S. is going to war without seeking any democratic approval anymore is deeply troubling.

> The moment they made that name change and stated their expansionist agenda it finally became clear to me that this wasn't just MAGA anymore, this was actual fascism.

I'm pretty sure MAGA was always fascism. I mean, all the signs were there and people were sounding alarm bells almost immediately.

lo_zamoyski 116 days ago

I an opposed to Trump's unhinged offensive, but let's not fall prey to media narrative. Nobody called similar actions "fascism" before (or they did, as the word is thrown around casually in the US, but then nothing has changed). Similarly, when Obama vastly expanded deportations and the like, nobody cared.

I don't like Trump. At all. I think he's a terrible president on the whole and a shameless opportunist. But I don't like one-sided politics and hypocrisy even more so, and I dislike hysteria. History and long term trends paint us a different picture of current events. Most people's horizons are limited to the shallow, tendentious, cherry-picked, and sensationalist news cycle, unfortunately, regardless of outlet. Should we criticize Trump? Yes. But we should criticize all leadership when they do what they should not be doing.

BTW, the Dept. of War was the original name from 1789 to 1947. Curiously, it was soon after the change to Dept. of Defense that people like Eisenhower began to worry about the Military-Industrial Complex. That should give us pause. The name change conceals the intention, and coincides with a hungry imperial war machine that WWII helped bring into existence. Recall that Americans were largely isolationist before that.

This is clearly not fascism, and not very different from what the US is accustomed to. Let's not waste the meaning of words by throwing them at any occasion.

What do you think fascism is? What we have is a populist, nationalist, racist, far-right regime headed by a man that our highest court has ruled can't be held accountable for his "official" actions and who acts like a dictator (as further evidenced in this case by going to war without congress) who uses to the power of the government to attack/threaten/suppress his "enemies" here in the US. If this isn't textbook fascism you must admit that it at least checks a lot of the same boxes

Well this is not fascism, this is, as you said, a populist regime.

The far left loves to categorize everything at its right as "fascist". The infamous Berlin wall was the "antifascist protection wall". In Yugoslavia, you'd hear every day at the radio a rant about the "fascists", even though the country was communist.

There are many definitions of what "fascism" is. The best I think is to refer to the historical italian fascist government, to understand it.

Btw presidential immunity is not fascist, many countries have similar laws.

dns_snek 115 days ago

> The best I think is to refer to the historical italian fascist government, to understand it.

Sure, why don't we:

- leader with a cult of personality

- an idealized story of the prosperous past (make america great again)

- pinning blame for the nation's downfall on marginalized minorities and persecuting them (immigrants, socialists)

- aggressively anti-socialist/leftist, protection of capital and suppression of labor rights

- glorification of violence (ICE, hate crimes, "department of war")

- ramping up existing and starting new imperialistic conflicts (Venezuela, Cuba, now Iran)

- rolling back personal liberties (freedom of speech, right to due process, women's rights)

- suppression of the free press given unfavorable reporting (revocation of TV licenses, revocation of access to white house)

- clear desire with ongoing attempts to dismantle democracy (capitol attack, violating separation of powers by illegally withholding funding for programs and violating court orders)

- demands complete subservience rather than competence in all appointed roles

- all of this with full support of the elites (clear shift in the 2nd term)

If you want to argue that the US isn't fascist because Trump hasn't completely dismantled the judicial branch yet, be my guest.

But fascism isn't just a concrete political system where a dictator has absolute power, it's an ideology, and Trump and the Republican party are clearly fascist in that sense - that is their goal. It's just a question of whether they'll succeed in dismantling the judicial branch before his term is over.

The only people who benefit from this sort of language policing are the fascists themselves.

P.S. I probably shouldn't be saying this but the fact that you refer to people sounding the alarm as "the far left" really gives the game away.

Saline9515 115 days ago

Each point, aside from the cult of personality regarding Trump, is shallow.

For instance, the US didn't start a war against Venezuela or Cuba under Trump. America was much more aggressive in the 80´s, if you want to compare.

Immigration can totally be a problem, and voters in the western world increasingly ask their leaders to address it. It's not "democracy" when it suits your ideas and "fascism" when it doesn't.

Opposing socialism isn't "fascist" and afaik the Trump admin has done nothing significant about it: social expenses and the deficit are still growing faster than ever. What is mainly happening is that ressources are being redirected toward the retired, who are influencial voters and a growing demographic. It's the same everywhere in the western world.

Again, all of those measures are very superficial and nothing like what real fascism did in Italy or what Nazis did when they came to power. You can't reason just with outrage and headlines.

By the way, most of those points have their Democrat counterpart with a different style, it's mainly linked to the evolution of the governance style in the US. Democrats also had their DEI unsuited hires, censorships (Meta was censoring on the order of the White House), and so on.

CrossVR 116 days ago

> Let's not waste the meaning of words by throwing them at any occasion.

Honest question, but if this is not fascism, then what is? Aren't you also wasting the meaning of a word by refusing to acknowledge any application of that word?

There isn't a single accepted definition of what fascism is. The USSR and their left-wing allies in Western Europe would define everything that wasn't communist as “fascist”. It still continues to this day.

I'd suggest you read about fascist Italy to get a sense of what fascism is. So far I haven't seen Democrats repeatedly kicked out of cars in Times Square after drinking a bottle of castor oil. Trump said that he wouldn't look to be reelected for a third mandate.

The Iran war is mainly a consequence of the Israeli influence on US politics; it has nothing to do with fascism, and it is in continuity with the previous administration.

So yeah, populism likely, a plutocracy (evidenced by the role of AIPAC in elections) but not fascism.

CrossVR 116 days ago

> I'd suggest you read about fascist Italy to get a sense of what fascism is. So far I haven't seen Democrats repeatedly kicked out of cars in Times Square after drinking a bottle of castor oil.

January 6th had all the hallmarks of the black shirts marching on Rome. And ICE is definitely pulling people out of cars and homes in Democratic cities. But I guess everything is fine because they're not making them drink castor oil.

Immigration enforcement is necessary, but these actions clearly have less to do with people's immigration status and more to do with political reprisal.

> Trump said that he wouldn't look to be reelected for a third mandate.

They'll always say they'll follow the Constitution to legitimize themselves, but their actions don't reflect it.

> The Iran war is mainly a consequence of the Israeli influence on US politics; it has nothing to do with fascism, and it is in continuity with the previous administration.

It has everything to do with fascism, not because of its motivation, but it's lack of democratic approval. This administration has a clear disdain for the democratic process.

I sincerely hope there was some secret vote by Congress that we don't know about.

> So yeah, populism likely, a plutocracy (evidenced by the role of AIPAC in elections) but not fascism.

I would've agreed with you if we were talking about Trump's first term, that was clearly just populism. This second term goes far beyond what any populist leader has done in Europe.

[0] https://time.com/7380309/iran-war-legal-trump/?utm_source=ch...

> January 6th

Trump has no structured paramilitary militias like the Squadras or the SA. The January 6th was mainly a crowd movement, participants were a heteroclite bunch with very different political ideas.

> ICE

ICE is a state agency, which existed before and has never been known for its benevolent and non-violent actions. The problems mainly arise from the overhiring, lack of training, and braindead managers. By the way, many members agency are not white, which contradicts the racism narrative. Alex Pretti was shot by two latino officers, for instance.

> lack of democratic approval

Lack of democratic approval for a war isn't facism. It's a strong presidential regime. France has the same and is not fascist. And it's legal in the current form[0].

> farther than any populist leader

Politics aren't a 1d political spectrum were the ends are facism. Afaik declaring a war to satisfy the billionaires of another nation is clearly not fascism, nor even nationalist in the strict sense.

Words are important because if you earnestly want the situation to change, you need to assess it clearly. The Trump presidency has a more to do with the influence of money in US politics, and the media system which favors outrage and "loud" candidates. Democrats also commited a historical blunder with the botched Biden candidacy and the lack of a credible replacement (Kamala was clearly not convincing from the early start).

mint5 116 days ago

Are you claiming Harris or Biden would have bombed Iran like this? That does not sound credible, but if the other party wouldn’t have attached Iran then this is not business as usual, it’s the GOP as usual.

mixmastamyk 116 days ago

Maybe not exactly but Dems have started many wars, often to look tough due to the perception of them being weaker.

Biden and Harris didn't have any problems shipping tons of bombs to Israel, aimed at being exploded on dense civilian zones so I don't think that there is are dramatic differences between the two parties.

CrossVR 116 days ago

The dramatic difference is that Biden had Congressional approval to ship weapons to Israel and Ukraine.

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

Saline9515 115 days ago

Trump doesn't need congressional approval to launch operations shorter than 60 days, per the War Powers act, a law introduced by Democrats, by the way.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/harris-to-jewish-voters-all-op...

etc-hosts 116 days ago

from 2024:

"Harris to Jewish voters: ‘All options on the table’ to stop Iran from going nuclear In pre-election High Holidays call, US vice president says diplomatic solution still preferable to keep Islamic Republic from the bomb, charges Trump won’t stand by Israel"

bluescrn 116 days ago

But the Iranian regime isn’t at all fascist, right?

The existence of fascism elsewhere doesn't excuse its existence here.

epolanski 116 days ago

I'm not American.

yoyohello13 116 days ago

The Trump admin would sooner drop nukes on LA then cede a fair election.

gslepak 116 days ago

An honest discussion about this cannot be had on this site, it's kinda funny how pointless all the comments are here. Yours is the closest anyone is allowed to get and I wonder if yours will stay up.

peyton 116 days ago

The guy’s in the World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Fame. He’s been seeking or serving in office for over ten years. We all know. It’s old ground.

gslepak 116 days ago

No I'm talking about who is responsible for all of this. You're allowed to misunderstand (as you did here), you're allowed to downvote (as they do to me), you're allowed to lie, and allowed to be mistaken. But truth is nowhere to be found on Hacker News on this subject. There can be a million comments. All of them varying degrees of wrong or closer to the money and then removed.

rHashg 116 days ago

It is funny that the AIPAC influence narrative is allowed now, but think tank papers are greyed out and will disappear soon. So I guess "blame Bibi" is one of the desired narratives now.