[reliabilityguy]

> Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance.

Sure. Now they maybe able to reach Greece. Give them five years and they will develop missiles that can reach France, or even UK. I am sure europeans would love the idea of fanatical regime having arms that can reach them, especially, if we consider that EU today does not have very robust air defense. Even Israel that planned for this war for a while has rockets that penetrate their defenses.

I would prefer the politicians not to take those gambles.

[pear01]

Great logic. China and America might find themselves at war in the coming years. Should we just get it over with and attack them now? Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door. Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession or economic crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that.

Initiating a war is a gamble in of itself. Now Americans all over the world are potentially at increased risk from lone wolves. A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come.

For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection.

[bawolff]

> Where did you pull Greece from?

They hit cyprus, Greece seens to be a plausible estimate of the outer edge of their range.

[pear01]

With what? And the damage caused was what?

The answer: A drone. The damage, little to none.

What a powerful response to an outright attack on their country. This is the capability we are supposed to start a war over?

Sorry it does not follow that politicians in Greece and beyond in Europe were gambling with their citizens lives by entertaining the possibility Iran might launch a drone to crash unceremoniously off-target in Cyprus if their regime was attacked. I don't think anyone in Cyprus cares, actually the only thing this really seems to have kicked off in Cyprus is a protest movement against the American military presence there.

[bawolff]

> The answer: A drone. The damage, little to none.

I'm sure that will be a real comfort to all the people who have died from drone strikes.

[pear01]

I would think people killed by the machinery of needless wars would appreciate the same fate not falling on others.

You omitted that part out of your quote to do what, imply I don't care about dead drone victims? Because I believe we shouldn't launch wars needlessly?

What point are you trying to make? Should we bomb Toyota dealerships because of all the automobile fatalities? If you disagree should I imply you don't care about dead car crash victims?

[reliabilityguy]

China has both the nukes and ballistic missiles. Obviously, the calculus for the war with China completely different: you create a situation where China prefers not to attack Taiwan.

> Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that.

Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela.

> A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come.

Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate.

> For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection.

I am not.

[pear01]

> China has both the nukes and ballistic missiles. Obviously, the calculus for the war with China completely different: you create a situation where China prefers not to attack Taiwan.

The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about. The one the current President tore up because his predecessor was responsible for it.

> Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela.

Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job.

> Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate.

This is simply incorrect on so many levels I don't know where to start. But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.

[reliabilityguy]

> The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about.

It was a bad deal that structurally did not prevent IR from building a bomb. This deal did not allow for "Anytime,Anywhere" inspections, had a sunset clause, and simply put provided financial relief to IR for the next 20 years or so. You can read the conditions yourself, and you will arrive to the same conclusion.

> Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job.

No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics.

We may not like it, but it is the way it is.

> This is simply incorrect on so many levels

Like what?

> But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.

Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences. Even in areas with separatist ideas, like the Iranian Kurdistan or Baluchistan, separatists are an absolute minority. Unlike Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya do not see themselves as one nation. These countries had minorities ruling over majorities under the idea of pan-arabism, which is not a nation-centric movement at all. Obviously, when the regimes fell you have a situation where majority is pissed at minorities for years of oppression, and neither the minorities not the majorities do not see themselves as one nation. Add to this external funding, and you get prolonged civil war.

In Libya you have Qatar vs. UAE.

In Syria -- Turkey vs. Iran

In Iraq -- you have Iran vs. US (that backed transitional government).

Iran is nothing like that. Iranians see themselves as one nation for the most part. You can see it via the Women Life Freedom movement, which is supported by most of Iranians and is centered about women rights. Nothing like that can ever exist in Syria, Iraq, or Libya due to insane cultural difference between these countries and Iran.

[pear01]

> It was a bad deal that structurally did not prevent IR from building a bomb. This deal did not allow for "Anytime,Anywhere" inspections, had a sunset clause, and simply put provided financial relief to IR for the next 20 years or so. You can read the conditions yourself, and you will arrive to the same conclusion.

These are well-known talking points. Yes in a deal the other side gets something. That's what a deal is. Sorry it wasn't a totally awesome deal like Trump would have totally signed that got us everything we wanted. You have a choice start a war or make a deal. That's basic geopolitics. Instead you seem to want to invent a third option out of thin air - come up with the perfect deal. I don't arrive at the same conclusion because it's ridiculous. I have no reason to believe the administration that negotiated that deal was blatantly incompetent or let Iran off the hook. If they could have gotten a better deal and still avoided war I think they would have. What plausible explanation is there to the contrary? Instead, we have a successor who was also unable to negotiate a better deal, and now war. I'm not sure what point you are making. The idea that the Iranians were really any closer to getting a nuclear bomb is a lie. There is no evidence. Iran has been a weak pariah state that can barely keep its top officials alive. This has been the status quo for decades. The same president who negotiated that deal also unleashed Stuxnet. We already bombed more sites last year. Their leaders and scientists have had constant assassinations over the years. Why do you believe that they were any closer to a bomb a month ago than they were when that deal was signed? And what is your evidence?

> No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics.

So the President is lying about the motivations for war? So despite what pours out of his mouth you simply pick the most plausible (or easily defensible) explanation and then say "this is what the war is about"? Why would it be putting his cards on the table? You think it escapes anyone in China that it imports Iranian oil and this creates a problem for them? Or do you mean politics is about lying to your own electorate? I noticed you originally led with the same fear-mongering lie about the reach of Iranian missile capabilities. But now you've retreated to we are doing it to stop oil from getting to China. Maybe you, like the President, know the American people don't want to see their own troops and citizens killed to stop the flow of oil to China? Maybe they can also see that when oil stops flowing to China, gas prices also increase at home? We are spending billions of dollars and lost American lives to increase gas prices at home but hey also in China? Is that your claim?

> Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences.

You can just stop there. This is a lie. It's like the "we will be greeted as liberators" claim in Iraq. I can tell from reading the rest of this that you know very little about this region. I don't mean to insult you it's just such a disingenuous claim and makes this back and forth barely even worth it. You are conflating so many things - pan-arabism with majority/minority conflict or even the notion of having a nation. That's wrong. You think Egyptians don't see themselves as Egyptians because some of them believed in pan-arabism? Wrong. You know there are Shia Arabs, right? Do you think all Shia are Persian?

You also walked back from your original claim again.

You said:

> Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all.

Emphasis on *nothing in common at all*

I mean, really? Let's just rattle off a few that anyone with basic information literacy over the last few years would be able to come up with:

1. Countries that were under the grip of an authoritarian leader. Little to no evidence of recent civic institutions or culture of responsible governance.

2. Leaders who are not only authoritarian but flagrantly violent. In the absence of responsible governance, they resort to extreme violence to maintain power, creating cycles of pent up resentment, retribution and fear on both sides. The resentment of the powerless is obvious, however the fear of the powerful is equally as destabilizing.

3. Sizable minorities who even if aligned against the common dictator, will inevitably disagree with each other on the direction of the state. Once their common enemy is removed (to say nothing of a sizable loyalist faction) and given the lack of existing civic structures with broad buy-in, they often resort to violence. Persians only make up about 60% of Iran. Shia Muslims made up about the same percent in Iraq. I mean truly I have no idea what you are talking about. "They see themselves as one nation" based on what? Literally there have been multiple reports that the CIA is arming a separatist movement as we speak as their "boots on the ground" in Iran. You also ignored so many other cleavages - such as level of religious conservatism, class, geography. You think every person Shia or Persian is the same? Do you think when protestors in Iran were gunned down it was only because they weren't the same religion as the people shooting them? Or the same ethnicity? Do you not realize that the very notion of an identity, religion or ethnicity is itself often a point of contention?

4. In a region with a lot of other unstable states where domestic conflict can quickly spill over and spread across borders. Gee that should be obvious. And how about that in basically the same region as those other examples. Great track record of intervention here. But not this one. Trust me. Even though I'm also lying to you about oil being the cause of the war? Because god forbid I put my "cards on the table" aka a fact anyone with an internet connection can look up?

Why don't you actually answer some of the questions that led me to this long digression with you instead of continuing this constant walk back?

You could answer this:

> Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door.

Or I guess wait that's not important anymore because it's not really about that... it's about stopping oil from going to China.

So more importantly then, this:

> Initiating a war is a gamble in of itself. Now Americans all over the world are potentially at increased risk from lone wolves.

Perhaps the answer to this last question is you are so self-satisfied of the future and of your knowledge of Iran that you don't think it's a gamble? Maybe the price of dead Americans is worth it to stop oil flow to China? Where this started was this self-satisfied extrapolation from Greece, to Europe, to presumably the shores of America? How dare politicians risk lives by allowing this trend to develop, that you somehow saw as inevitable through your powers of clairvoyance. That was your position, right? Somehow we got from that to your supposed knowledge of oil flow grand strategy and Iranian nationalism. So I'm asking, what makes you so confident that this war is worth it? You see no risk? You have no doubts? Could you at least acknowledge the act of war is itself a gamble?

I'd appreciate an answer on that since this back and forth has gone on for a while and I've tried to respond to all the points you have brought up. Thanks

[reliabilityguy]

> And what is your evidence?

Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/iran-israel-m...

What is your evidence that given all we know about Iran, and the fact that they have 60%-enriched uranium, they are not building a bomb? Why do they need 60%-enriched uranium?

> Is that your claim?

No. My claim is that from a geopolitical point of view containment of China is the goal, and the war in Iran is just one step. Politics never about telling the truth -- it's about achieving goals.

You may not like the reality of it, but it is what it is.

> You know there are Shia Arabs, right? Do you think all Shia are Persian?

What does it have to do with anything? Can you form a coherent argument?

> I mean, really? Let's just rattle off a few that anyone with basic information literacy over the last few years would be able to come up with: <...>

> Little to no evidence of recent civic institutions or culture of responsible governance.

Iran has no civic institutions and no culture of responsible governance?

> Sizable minorities who even if aligned against the common dictator, will inevitably disagree with each other on the direction of the state.

The sectarian dynamics in Iraq, Syria and Lybia do not exist in Iran.

Yeah, "reports" about CIA are real. Sure.

> Great track record of intervention here.

There is no intervention though.

> Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door.

Have you seen the map? Open it, and then see where Cyprus is located.

Barely hit next door. Yeah.

> you don't think it's a gamble?

Of course it is. Like any other decision. You make the calculus and decide if the reward is worth the risk.

I am not sure any answer of mine you will find satisfiable. In your view, only 100% result justifies the risk. The reality is that you will never have 100% guarantee. For you inaction regardless of the consequences is the answer, for me it's better to act with uncertainty.

Finally, you assume (without evidence) that Iranian Regime is a rational actor. Once you change this assumption, the calculus will change.

[bdangubic]

> Give them five years and they will develop missiles that can reach France, or even UK.

Copy/Paste from 1980’s stories like this or you typed it in manually?

[reliabilityguy]

What?

[bdangubic]

https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/1l9t7yl/neta...

...

...

[reliabilityguy]

At the end IR does have nuclear material enriched to 60%.

So, he was right?

[bdangubic]

in 30 more years they'll get to 65% and in 100 more years maybe to 70% ;)

[za3faran]

This sounds like a straw man. What reason does Iran have to attack Europe? They don't engage in "mowing the lawn" like some other entity in the region.

[reliabilityguy]

For what reason IR attacked Cyprus?

[za3faran]

British military facilities.