[firesteelrain]

I don’t know how this is worse for the US or the World. Iran’s leadership and military was decapitated. It’s in the best interest of US, Europe and Israel and the Middle East. The nuclear program had a huge setback.

What are the counter arguments to these facts if we really end up in peace with Iran along with the bad actors gone too?

[fatbird]

The bad actors were killed, and the children of the bad actors took over. Same regime, now more firmly in control.

While before, Iran's assets worldwide were frozen, they're now receiving back $25 billion of it. Also, the sanctions preventing them from selling their oil are lifted, so they now have oil revenue to expect.

Additionally, the US will pay $300 billion to "reconstruct" Iran.

Lastly, Iran has proved that it has de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz and the mightiest military in the world cannot prevent or stop it. Going forward, Iran will receives fees to allow transit of the strait.

How can you possibly think this isn't worse for the US and the world than the previous status quo?

[firesteelrain]

If the status quo was so great, why was Iran sitting on near-weapons-grade uranium and months from breakout? “Do nothing and hope” wasn’t a strategy. The only meaningful question is whether Iran ends up weaker and farther from a bomb than before. If yes, it’s an improvement

[fatbird]

Iran will clearly end up much richer and thus stronger than before, with fewer international trade impediments. So Iran having a nuke is objectively much closer and more likely than before.

[kelnos]

Very little has changed with the regime. The next in line stepped up, and it seems like the future will be business as usual.

The nuclear bogeyman is the wrong thing to focus on. Sure, we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but they have a lot of other power in the region, and we've only confirmed and entrenched that power.

[firesteelrain]

Its proxies are weaker, its allies are fewer, and its economy is still dependent on sanctions relief. Preventing a nuclear weapon while dealing with a diminished regional adversary is a better position than preventing neither.

[ls612]

if the strait actually reopens and Iran actually ships the enriched uranium out of the country this is a reasonable outcome imo. My concern centers on the fact that neither of these two outcomes are guaranteed by a long shot at this point.

[firesteelrain]

Iran just confirmed the MOU.

[drbojingle]

Yes, removing leadership is very important. It's why the US does it every 4 to 8 years. The Iranians aren't gone just because they lost a leader. If anything they proved resilient.

The biggest problems with all of this seem to be the knock-on effects, as well as the lead-up. Does this new deal actually do more than Obama's? Doubtful. Obama's didn't come with a girls' school blown to bits or a world leader assassinated.

Everything around the politics of the attack looks amateurish. Calling on Europe to attack Iran even though no deal is in place with them to do so. Not stopping Iranian strikes throughout the middle east. Not keeping Israel in line. The war has been dragging on for months, but "it'll end this week." No, this week. "Very close this week." "Very close this week."

Then there's the issue of shooting down cheap drones with expensive equipment. Why in the name of the Lord is it that Ukraine has been bombed by Shaheds for years and defended against them using NATO and US weapons, but operators of US equipment in the Middle East had nothing to show for it? Did the US not have direct access to how the Ukrainians were using their equipment in a war characterized by the use of drones and AI to an extent never before seen? Did the US decide to not look into that for years, or simply let it slide knowing Iran would bomb its neighbors? Why was it that Zelenskyy had to go to the Middle East to make sure they used American weapons correctly? It seems to me lately that every country that can produce a meaningful amount of oil has been directly or indirectly affected by American aggression, and one has to wonder why you'd do something so blatant in slow motion.

[orwin]

The president/head of the civilian government in Iran was ousted, probably by the IRGC. The IRGC took control of the mullahs a week after the war started. They already had power over them, but the fact us that without the war, the supreme guide election would have been a difficult power struggle with political concessions. It wasn't thanks to Trump, reinforcing the IRGC control of Iran's religious life.

The Iranian regime will be more repressive and more extreme.

The only good point about that is that it makes the regime weaker to domestic insurrections.

[firesteelrain]

You’re assuming internal consolidation equals increased strength. History is full of regimes that became more authoritarian precisely because they were weaker and under pressure, not because they were winning.

[cosmicgadget]

Are the bad actors gone?