[rayiner]

You’re overlooking the fundamental difference between Iranian society and Afghan society. In Afghanistan, the U.S. was trying to bomb a place that was always a collection of small feudal states into being a functioning country. In Iran, it’s trying to dislodge a theocracy that’s taken over a country that’s had orderly, centralized administration for almost two thousand years.

I wouldn’t bet on either approach working. But a good outcome in Afghanistan was always completely hopeless. A good outcome in Iran is merely unlikely.

[vrosas]

I agree with you that Afghanistan is a much different country. My fear is that once the entire centralized theocracy is bombed out of existence it will open the door for localize warlords to begin carving up territory. The alternative is a Khamenei 2.0 character stepping in. But then the question is, will Israel/the US not just assassinate them too? I don't know but there's no way this ends well.

[rayiner]

I hate the idea of nation building. But I’ve long thought that if there was any Muslim country where we could pull off the feat we did in Germany and Japan—turning it into a stable democracy—it’s Iran. But that would take boots on the ground, which I don’t support. (I don’t support the assassination either to be clear.)

[1718627440]

> where we could pull off the feat we did in Germany

Germany was already a democracy just 12 years prior and has been a loose union of constitutional monarchies for a century before. Just saying.

[rayiner]

That’s my point. Germany already had a developed state with burgeoning democratic government. So it wasn’t a tall order to reboot it as a stable democracy. Japan likewise had already developed a modern state under Emperor Meiji.

[yubblegum]

> In Iran, it’s trying to dislodge a theocracy that’s taken over a country that’s had orderly, centralized administration for almost two thousand years.

You don't actually know anything about Iran's history, do you. Sure, back in the pre-Islamic days, Persia had two empires that pretty much set the standard for "centralized administration". After Arab invasion, it's a mixed record. The Safavid's (possibly) can be considered a "centrally administered" kingdom. To wit, Reza Shah Pahlavi's feather in his cap was that he managed to (finally after centuries) put the various provincial grandees and nomadic tribes in a box. That's basically 100 years.

A good primer background (on modern Iran at least) is "Iranian Nationalism" by Richard Cottam, 1963.

[donkeybeer]

I am sure they are trying to "dislodge theocracy". We know USA and Israel are always hypertruthful about their real goals in Middle eastern adventurism. One country "doesn't" have any nukes and the other attacked Iraq because they "had" nukes. So tou should understand if different people have different levels of trust in the stated motivations.

[rayiner]

The objective of the mission is clearly to dislodge the theocracy. The motivation for doing so is clearly US and Israeli security, not concern for the welfare of Iranians. Which is as it should be. Countries should act in their own interest, not in the interests of other countries.

[donkeybeer]

The objective is bs, most probably oil and Israeli interests. After all there have been many stated "objectives" of all their past middle eastern campaigns. I literally cited an example where false lie of nukes was used to invade Iraq while the actual country lying about nukes sits scot free and is again directing another misadventure. If the USA hated theocracies so much it won't be allying with arab countries or have been propping up the "Mujahideen".

[nerdyadventurer]

> We know USA and Israel are always hypertruthful about their real goals in Middle eastern adventurism.

Really? Has they talk about bombing a school due to incorrect intel, over 150 are dead with lot of being children. https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/03/1167063

[donkeybeer]

Please read my message again.

[AlecSchueler]

> But a good outcome in Afghanistan was always completely hopeless.

I was with you up until this. Just wanted to point out that a "good outcome" is relative and not necessarily synonymous with a centralised state.