[kelnos]

> The main issues with this war are strategic questions

That's an exceptionally nice way of saying we invaded a country for no valid military reason, starting a war of aggression.

We're no better than Russia now, with their invasion of Ukraine.

> ... and people mocking the presidents inconsistent communication.

Well-deserved mockery. He continues to lie about what's happening, every other sentence.

[ACCount37]

Iran's regime is an radical Islamic theocracy that has "Death to America" as a matter of policy, supports every other radical Islamist militia in the entire Middle East region, and tried to build nukes after being told, repeatedly, not to build nukes.

I don't know about you, but the idea of a radical Islamic theocracy and a well known source of Middle East instability having nukes doesn't sit well with me. As far as reasons to invade countries go, this alone would make for a damn good one.

[platinumrad]

If a button existed that magically turned Iran into a secular-ish democracy(-ish) like Turkey then, yes, I would expect the President of the United States to press it.

No such button exists, and it's increasingly clear that this war will leave the entire world far worse off while further entrenching the current Iranian regime.

[ACCount37]

"Far worse off" how exactly? "Entrenching" how exactly?

Iranian regime wasn't doing that well even when it wasn't actively bombed. And "rally around the flag" only goes so far in a country that has been killing protestors by the thousands.

I don't see this war ruining Iran's regime overnight as is. But if it comes up with a sustained effort to pressure Iran, or a ground operation to topple the regime directly, it well might.

[overfeed]

> "Far worse off" how exactly? "Entrenching" how exactly?

Hardliners and the IRGC have significantly more power than before, and however few moderates that remain have much less political capital and are at much greater risk of being purged.

If Iran doesn't win significant concessions tayt the sucker-punch attacks will never be repeated again[1], they are guaranteed to sprint towards the minimum viable nuke.

1. Bibi will refuse, obviously, and Americas capacity to leash him is questionable.

[ACCount37]

"Moderates" in Iran were consecutively dismantled and purged for decades. A country that has moderates providing a meaningful counterbalance to hardliners doesn't kill protestors by thousands.

Pre-war, the situation was bad enough that dropping bombs on Iran's key decision-makers might have actually made the government more moderate on average. Not that it matters much. "More moderate" in context of Iran's government isn't anywhere near "moderate" either way.

[overfeed]

The "Nothing ventured, nothing lost" attitude would make a lot more sense if the region would go back to the status quo ante after the "excursion."

[verdverm]

Here's an idea I heard put forth because Iran is asking for a great power guarantee against future incidents like this.

Have China the guarantor, build military bases, and put them under their nuclear deterrence umbrella. Iran can be assured they won't be bombed, the West can be assured they won't have nukes. (in theory, I largely assume the CCP will not aid in their construction or let them have nukes under such an arrangement).

Thing is, all the little countries are looking at what happened to Ukraine (who gave up their nukes), Iran (who has not gotten them yet), and North Korea (who has them). Their looking and thinking, if I had nukes, I probably wouldn't be the target of regime change.

[umanwizard]

Why would China agree to that? It's an insane proposition for them. "You have to put bases in a country where you have no strategic reason to do so, and in addition, you agree that if that country is attacked then you have to nuke the US, guaranteeing your own destruction."

[verdverm]

They want a base in the Middle East and they have many reasons to be there, oil being one of them, they actually get it from there. As Trump says (today), the US does not have any need for their oil, so in that sense China has more reason to be there.

Mutually Assured Destruction has worked for 75 years, China is aggressively expanding their stockpiles. Would the US or Israel risk a war with China over Iran if they get the assurances from the Chinese they will keep Iran on a tight leash?

> Why would China agree to that?

Ultimately the aim to displace the US as the world hegemon. Having bases across the world is what hegemons do.

[CamperBob2]

Half-price oil?

[umanwizard]

So Iran would sell its main natural resource at half-price forever to pay for China to keep bases on its territory? That also doesn’t seem plausible.

Realistically there is no amount that Iran would be willing to pay and that China would be willing to accept for China to essentially agree to be responsible for the defense of Iran. It’s a non-starter.