Kinda reminds me of the story of king Croesus of Lydia, who asked the oracle of Delphi whether he should wage war against Cyrus the Great, the Oracle promptly told him that by doing so he would "destroy a great empire". Croesus then promptly attacked the Persians and lost.
""" It comes as a surprise to many visitors to discover that Iran, a country so hostile to Israel and with a reputation for intolerance, is home to a small but vibrant Jewish community that is an officially recognized religious minority under Iran's 1979 Islamic Constitution.
"Khomeini didn't mix up our community with Israel and Zionism - he saw us as Iranians," says Haroun Yashyaei, a film producer and chairman of the Central Jewish Community in Iran."""
Iran's objection is not with Judaism but with the occupation and the meddling in their affairs through proxies.
To clarify, the quote comes directly from the Wikipedia article on Iranian Jews [1], which cites a BBC source [2].
The phrasing is "After Israel, it is home to the second-largest Jewish population in the Middle East."
The links you posted actually support my point rather than refute it.
The "Jewish population by country" page lists Iran at 8,500–20,000. Palestine is not listed as a separate entry with a larger Jewish population.
You may be referring to Israeli settlers in the West Bank, but those individuals are Israeli citizens counted under Israel's population in every demographic source I'm aware of.
Counting them under "Palestine" would require simultaneously recognizing Palestine as a sovereign state while attributing Israeli citizens to it, which no standard demographic dataset does.
If you have a source that counts a Jewish population in a recognized state called Palestine that exceeds Iran, I'd genuinely be interested to see it. But calling a direct Wikipedia/BBC citation a "straight up lie" is a strong claim that should probably come with a stronger source and also shows, you arrive with an ulterior agenda, that I at least, do not have.
Hence the term "Delphic", commonly used in English to mean "dangerously ambiguous".
But in this case, there's not really much ambiguity - Trump is openly threatening genocide and, as a result, is destroying any remaining moral authority that the USA might once have had.
Does anyone knows why current US administration keeps aligning with Chinese interests in their actions while proclaiming that China is their main adversary?
They even send JD Vance to support Orban in his elections. The same Orban and Hungary which Xi Jinping supports and recently visited out of all the EU.
You cannot agree with someone on so many actions and keep pretending that you are against each other.
Putin will be loving it, but I guess China that must be likely to emerge as the real winners from this.
At what point are the US military expected to refuse unlawful orders? Some form of high-level mutiny might actually be the best way forward for America right now.
He said "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again." To me that sounds more like a threat to destroy a civilization than an announcement that the US will be targeting specific parts of Iranian infrastructure, but maybe you are better at reading between the lines than I am.
> We don’t know which infrastructure he wants to attack
I think you may be living under a rock. He has announced multiple times that he wants to go after oil processing, power plants, desalination plants, and bridges. His threat for today's deadline (made last week) is to destroy every power plant and bridge in the country.
You are the only one making fake arguments. The threat was explicitly to destroy 'a civilization', which nobody but yourself considers equivalent to 'infrastructure'. Ply your lame rhetorical fallacies elsewhere.
> Genocide is very clear intent to destroy a people.
"a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again."
where is the intent ambiguous to you? are you just one of those that says Trump blusters big to force negotiations? otherwise, he's quite clearly said the he wants to eliminate "a whole civilization" which is exactly what genocide is. not really sure how you can be confused on this other than willingly so
He did exactly that and succeeded. Read his book the art of the deal, in which he says that is precisely his strategy. Historically this is what he does every single time.
Genocide literally means killing a nation, and that's what Trump is threatening. If he achieves those aims by destroying vital infrastructure, it's just as much genocide as if he does it by any other means.
Article IIc of the Genocide Convention would likely cover that particular case, but I'll note that that's just your reading of it - Trump hasn't actually given specifics.
What he definitely has done, though, is make a clear statement of intent. And, historically, the most difficult part in proving genocide has been with demonstrating intent. Trump's just made that bit easy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews