[throwaway836123]

As someone who has lived most of his life in Iran, I ask those who find any alignment with the IRGC to please understand that it is a religiously fanatic military and terrorist group.

They are behind many atrocities in Iran and in the region including the situation in Gaza (partially). They also provided weaponry and support to Russia against Ukraine.

[swat535]

Iranian here, I have no love for the IRGC but I am glad they are keeping Americans from destroying our country right now.

We don't need Americans to "save us", we have 90M intelligent people and can resolve our own issues. It would be great if the West started respecting the sovereignty of other nations.

I have a hard time sympathizing with the Pahlavi supporters cheering the bombing of our home.

[throwaway836123]

My comment wasn’t about the West saving us, nor was it about supporting Pahlavi (which I personally did, but of course I’m against the continued bombing of my country).

What I’m saying is that supporting one of the biggest terrorist group in the world by the logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a grave mistake. It legitimizes one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reasons behind the current situation in Iran and some other bad situations in the region.

If you are an Iranian, you know what IRGC has done and keep doing, how good they are at propaganda and how nothing is beyond them including killing (and worse) anyone anywhere in the name of their god.

[swat535]

I know what IRGC has done, my cousin was spent 6 months in the Evin prison after the Mahsa uprising and her entire life was stolen from her. So I don't need a moral lecture.

But the IRGC is the only one defending my home right now. I also find it curious why you are not calling the US or Israel against this illegal aggression against our country?

[throwaway836123]

Then we have both suffered from IRGC. as I have loved ones who were killed by them, and we both have a stake in the country’s security, since my family and most of my friends still live there.

What I’m saying is that we should not legitimize the IRGC. Trump is bad, the current Israeli government is very bad, and the IRGC is very bad.

On another note, the IRGC is defending itself, not us. They’ve killed exponentially more people in days than US or Israel has over in total. Again, all of these are bad.

[sph]

> one of the biggest terrorist group in the world

Clearly the biggest tell that you are anything but Iranian. You might dislike the regime but no one calls their own government a “terrorist group”, a term reserved for foreign agents.

Stop astroturfing behind a throwaway, you coward.

[lejalv]

Don't be so self-centered. Supporting the IRGC to give Trump a presidency-ending war is the rational approach for non-US citizens. Iran has been so far a much more contained risk for them than the US.

Here, have a look for what a terrorist country looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U...

[gpt5]

I don't know if you realize - but the Americans have offered IRGC a pretty generous deal that essentially removes almost all sanctions in return to stop developing nukes, and the IRGC itself is escalating the situation, which could force America to bomb Iran again.

[foo12bar]

The American's ally broke the MoU nearly immediately after the signing by continuing to attack Lebanon.

> Point 1: The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.

[mardifoufs]

You forgot to mention a small detail, the US did that only after they started a war. The US is known for its perfidy at this point, so any deals they propose aren't exactly trustworthy, and the US couldn't even contain israel after the latest MoU which made it void.

[gpt5]

Not true. The US has been negotiating with Iran for over a year about a nuclear deal before the war started. This has all been public.

[defrost]

If only the prior P5+1 / Iran JCPOA deal of 2015 that constrained HEU and was backed up by multi country inspectors and tamper resistant / revealing on site instrumentation hadn't been thrown out the window by some fool.

Why on earth would anyone trust a country that reneged on a hard fought deal and followed that up by bombing during negotiations to restore what was lost.

[mupuff1234]

Maybe because signing a new deal is better for your country and your people?

Like what's the worst case scenario that happens to iran if they just signed a new deal? How would it have been any worse than the current situation?

The deal doesn't even require a high level of trust - worst case they just go back to the previous situation. Making a deal only has an upside, even without trust.

Just like employment at will - and yet having a job is better than no job in most cases.

[anigbrowl]

1-800-come-on-now

The current POTUS tore up the last nuclear deal with iran in 2018 for domestic political payoff. I can't take protestations about 'we've been trying to negotiate!' seriously when they come from the same people that created nearly a decade of strategic uncertainty (preceded by years of trash talk) and whose negotiation style oscillates between brutal violence and self-pitying wheedling.

I don't want to be partisan, but the incumbent POTUS is the epitome of dishonesty and the political polarization in US domestic politics is so extreme that even US allies are talking about a generational loss of trust. It would be irrational for a historical antagonist like Iran to bank on negotiating a new agreement with a country that refuses to bind itself by any international norms; it seems to me that it would be far more rational for Iran to breakout in pursuit of a nuke, and having once performed a successful test, reap the benefits of strategic stability that have gradually accrued to North Korea despite its ongoing pariah status. That is to say, once they have a nuke and other countries can no longer casually attack them, more of their economy can be redirected away from acquiring a strategic deterrent and into more normal kinds of economic development.

[simoncion]

Hi, USian here, as I assume you are.

Not only has the US proven itself to be incredibly untrustworthy -both recently and in the past-, the protracted war in Ukraine demonstrates what happens when you give up your nukes and a member of the "nuke-havers" club decides that they want your territory. We're at the point where any country that has a militant nuclear-weapons-equipped neighbor and has both the ability to develop nuclear weapons and the state power to keep control of them would be stupid not to build them.

It's a shame that several of the countries that are supposed to be "the adults in the room" have decided to abandon the various gentlemen's agreements that made nuclear-weapons nonproliferation agreements sensible.

[watwut]

And it started bombing twice during those negotiations. They started war after Iran made concessions. And bombed during first negotiations.

The US idea of peace was regular bombing - I have heard people from defemse sector even use the "lawn moving" term publically. I dont understand an expectation that foreign country should be ok with that.

Plus, Trump dont do good faith deals, he promisses and breaks deals next day.

[Braxton1980]

Didn't the US previously make a deal then Trump broke it?

[toast0]

As an American, I don't see how you can have serious negotiations with the US at the moment. You negotiate to an agreement, and then the terms change after agreement is announced. Or you show up to negotiations and your negotiation team is assassinated. Or your head of state is assasinated or kidnapped.

If you do get to a deal, there's no permanance and no means of enforcement.

[inigyou]

You forgot that the USA broke the deal immediately after making it.

[plandis]

How is attacking a random datacenter keeping the Trump administration from attacking Iran?

[mdp2021]

> we have 90M intelligent people and can resolve our own issues

This seems counterfactual, unless you called the regime for which you state you «have no love for» "satisfactory" or its length "insignificant".

> we have 90M intelligent people

This is also a pretty unbelievable claim - were it so, I and many others would move to Iran immediately. Can we say you are not being literally factual?

[frollogaston]

I don't care about Iran's leadership and think this shouldn't be the US's war to fight. Also, we aren't even trying to replace their government, we're just attacking per Israel's wishes. There must be a lot of Americans who agree.

[adrr]

Israel's leader is wanted by the international court for genocide. And lets not forget how Iran's current government took power? US installed a dictator in Iran because UK was angry that Iran nationalized the UK owned oil fields. This led to a coup, which resulted in the current Iranian government.

There's no good guys. Why is the US even there?

Edit: downvoted to -3. Did i say anything that was untrue? Or do people not like the truth?

[strictnein]

> This led to a coup, which resulted in the current Iranian government.

I mean, you're passing over the violent revolution from socialists and Islamists.

[pbiggar]

America had a violent revolution. So did practically every other country. Are violent revolutions de facto bad?

[Der_Einzige]

Yes. We had no good justification for war against the crown circa the American revolutionary war. The crown spent a lot of money defending us vs the French in the French and Indian war and were totally justified in levying the extremely low taxes that they did on the colonists.

We should be part of Canada right now

[frollogaston]

Maybe defending and taxing the colonies should've been the colonies' decision, not England's. Even if England gave them a favorable deal that they then broke, England's mistake then.

Also, I only care about what outcome is better for us in the long run. Being part of UK or Canada wouldn't have been better. Though many colonies' independence movements have led to disaster.

[strictnein]

Huh? I'm just pointing out that their supposed timeline of events missed a rather notable one.

Also, yes, your insight that not all revolutions are equal is correct. The US "revolution" (really more of a war for independence) was a net positive. The Iranian Revolution (which truly was a revolution) was a net negative.

[Braxton1980]

>Edit: downvoted to -3. Did i say anything that was untrue? Or do people not like the trutH

Isn't it an oversimplification to say there are no good guys? O

[grumple]

The funny thing is that the prosecutor for the ICC (Khan) who issued charges against Netanyahu was just removed today over sexual assault allegations, which had previously not been reported because the Muslim victim was worried that the charges against Netanyahu would be dropped. Khan literally messaged her “Think about the Palestinian arrest warrants”. Palestine has been such an effective political tool for the Muslim oligarchs and patriarchy. So anyway… more bad guys.

[mike_d]

> US installed a dictator in Iran because UK was angry that Iran nationalized the UK owned oil fields.

> Did i say anything that was untrue? Or do people not like the truth?

It is widely assumed, but not factually correct, that the US was responsible.

On August 15th 1953 the CIA staged a coup to overthrow the government, but it failed. By the next day the State Department was actively trying to enter into diplomatic talks.

Three days later a group of clerics headed by Ayatollah Borujerdi took advantage of the situation and stirred up unrest that was ultimately responsible for the Shah taking power. They had been concerned about Mossadeq embracing secular liberalism and a referendum that dissolved the Majlis (parliament/congress). MI-6 had offered them support, but they rejected it.

I would highly recommend this book if you can get a copy: https://www.amazon.com/Iran-CIA-Fall-Mosaddeq-Revisited/dp/0...

[adrr]

> On 19 August 1953, Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. It was instigated by the United Kingdom (MI6), under the name Operation Boot[5][6][7][8] and the United States (CIA), under the name TP-AJAX Project[9] or Operation Ajax. A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran after Mosaddegh nationalized the country's oil industry

Straight from Wikipedia

[mike_d]

That was the understanding until the CIA released a bunch of documents in 2017 which revealed that it was such an abysmal failure that they almost called off the entire thing.

The attempted coup brought out a lot of pro Mossadeq protestors. It wasn't until the 19th when clerics organized anti Mossadeq protestors that it took hold.

Might be worth flagging to Wikipedia editors for a review.

[frollogaston]

Idk which is correct, but I really wouldn't take Wikipedia at face value for this kind of topic. Would dig into the sources if I were more interested.

[anigbrowl]

Even if we take these claims at face value, think about how this looks from the Iranian side:

- Failed coup attempt threatens government

- 'Ooops sorry just pranking you lol'

- Distracted government challenged by internal actor

- Power vacuum followed by monarchy

I'm sorry, this is like disclaiming responsibility for shooting at you on the grounds that most of my bullets missed and the one that hit just winged you. It's not my fault that your grumpy neighbor exploited the situation to attack you and then a third actor exploited the situation to seize all your assets!

[TiredOfLife]

What are alternatives. You can't change from inside and you can't change from the outside.

[runtime_terror]

Why do we think it's our job to intervene in other countries like this?

And if we wanted to help another country, working with the international community should be the only approach we take.

We've spent many decades overthrowing countries to what end? Even our vassals like Israel have universal healthcare while we're all in debt because of healthcare. It's not working and needs to stop.

[Galaxeblaffer]

In this case, the US was pretty involved in destabilizing the country. If the us and the uk hadn't intervened in 50s, Iran would have made a successful transition from monarchy to democracy. I guess we can discuss if the US owes anything to anyone, but a case for the us correcting earlier mistakes can definitely be made.

[qntmfred]

there's much more to the story of Iran than the simple "oh of course the UK and US are bad"

[Galaxeblaffer]

Og course there's so much more to the story.. but the fact is that the monarchy was effectively overthrown and shah had given up power and fled the country. In this particular instance it's very simple.. the us and the uk was bad

[frollogaston]

I can't assume that Iran would've successfully transitioned to democracy, or that it's even what should happen there. All those Arabian Gulf countries are monarchies.

[senderista]

never mind that Iran has a totally different language, culture and history

[Teever]

It comes down to the simple reality that "I am because we are" and as such any time a human being is oppressed we are all oppressed.

One could make the argument the people who live in liberal democracies have an obligation to help those who unfortunately do not and who are still forced to live under autocratic oppression.

There were periods in history where most people lived under the thumb of some sort of autocrat of one form or another be they monarchs or religious leaders. Most people had very few human rights and had little opportunity for self-determination. Through the hard work of revolutionaries around the world many of those autocrats were deposed and others seeing the writing on the wall offered power to the people more willingly.

Think of it like a jailbreak where the jailer is oppressive and everyone in the jail is innocent. On your wait out should help open the cells of as many people as you can if only out of your own self interest because a larger mob escaping gives each individual a better chance to escape due to strength in numbers but also because it's just the right thing to do.

It's sort of the same thing here, Our ancestors (or even some of us) got out from under the thumb of an autocrat jailer but there are still others in that jail. If we don't help them who will? What would you want someone else to do if you were in their situation? To walk by an unjustly imprisoned person's jail cell and not free them when it is trivial to do so makes you the jailer.

Now that's the theory. In practice, I agree with much of what you're saying -- reality is a far trickier place than we'd like and the details make doing the right thing difficult if not impossible. And that doesn't cover the reality that western democracies are imperfect themselves and that many of their citizens are still subject to repression by their own autocratic leaning leaders, and so that we can't always do the right thing, but we should at least aspire to.

[badpun]

If you overthrow one autocrat and the society is not ready to self-govern, you'll just have another one taking his place. The best you can do is to fund some kind of democratic opposition on the ground and in exile, hoping to grow a political class mature enough that they will take over after autocrat loses power one way or another.

[don_esteban]

Maybe the best you can do is just don't meddle in other's internal affairs.

Just think how would you feel if other countries interfered 'with all good intentions, of course' in the internal affairs of your country.

[frollogaston]

Btw, Iran does have an opposition group in exile in the US, and nobody is trying to reinstate them. I'm not saying they should be, just that Trump's talk about changing the govt in Iran isn't in good faith.

[ferbivore]

Trump is not Che Guevara. The US doesn't send troops at great personal danger to themselves to help oppressed revolutionaries. They back fascist dictatorships and launch drone strikes. They murdered 120 children on day one in Iran. Buying the party line here is absurd.

[TiredOfLife]

> Why do we think it's our job to intervene in other countries like this?

If Iran wasn't supporting terror organizations around the world and didn't help russia I would agree. Their country, they can kill as much of their own people as they please.

[senderista]

> our vassals like Israel

Are you sure it isn’t the other way around?

[js4ever]

are you saying jews control the world?

[inigyou]

No, they're saying America is a vassal of Israel. Very different statement.

[mptest]

> alternatives...

Well, maybe start fixing problems at home before spending tens of billions not fixing things anywhere else? we can't even change ourselves for the better, an adjudicated rapist, alleged pedophile rules us, and we're going to reform other countries? what grounds do we have to be casting stones ? "they're killing protestors!" I hear many westerns say, while ignoring the americans we're jailing for 30 years, calling terrorists for protesting the extrajudicial killings ICE are doing. we have millions without healthcare, above subsistence employment, food security. Why are americans worried about "changing" iran?? Let's look in the mirror, folks.

[frollogaston]

Either treat it as not our problem, or if we're going to get involved, have a strategy to change the government. Yes it has been done in Iran at least once from the outside, maybe twice.

[Henchman21]

Do nothing and let them live in peace.

[joshmarinacci]

The alternative is what the last five American presidents have done: containment. There's a reason Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton and Bush didn't start the war that Trump did. This is why.

[TiredOfLife]

Containment led to russia launching hundreds of iranian designed drones at Ukraine evey day.

[Der_Einzige]

Trump could EASILY increase US support to Ukraine. He could have even done what France was flirting with, which was deploying boots on the ground in defensive positions as a "red line". Bringing up Ukraine/Russia is not in good faith. You know this, you know that democrats have called for aggressively arming Ukraine and never wanted this dumb Iran war.

Trump isn't "strong" until he actually calls Putin's bluff on nuclear weapons. You're not gonna do it Putin, and I'm fully willing for me and everyone I know to die in WW3/nuclear holocaust just to make sure Putin goes to hell a bit faster.

[frollogaston]

Trump probably withdrew funding from Ukraine to fund Israel instead, simple as.

[frollogaston]

Even Biden and Bush got too involved in the region. There's really not much for us to gain there, because it's not for us. Biden is still #1 on this list https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cycle=All&ind...

[Braxton1980]

Why does the amount of money mattter and not the actions taken?

Trump has done more pro israel actions than Biden

[frollogaston]

Trump indeed has. And that chart doesn't show Miram Adelson's $100M given to Trump's campaign plus whatever she and her husband gave before the first term, so even terms of money Trump is far ahead. From a woman who describes herself as an Israeli stuck in America.

However, Biden is completely pro-Israel. He would do anything for them and has said so. Guessing he didn't think attacking Iran was the best thing for Israel. Well look at how it's going.

[petilon]

Ground troops have to invade Iran. Trump can't do that now because of upcoming midterm elections. After the elections, if there is no other way then Trump has to send ground troops in.

[biorach]

Forget Iraq, forget Afghanistan... because This Time It's Different

and of course ground troops _have_ to invade Iraq, Saddam has WMD's. And it will finally bring stability to the region. And they _have_ to invade Afghanistan, there is no way to take out bin Laden otherwise. And it will finally bring stability to the region. Casualties will be minimal because the oppressed natives will welcome us as liberators and our overwhelming military superiority will ensure our troops suffer no casualties.

[frollogaston]

They didn't even change the excuse, it's supposedly WMDs again

[padjo]

If you thought Afghanistan was a disaster, Iran would be at least 10 times worse.

[petilon]

There are no good choices here. It is either ground invasion and restore Ahmadinejad to power, or accept defeat and accept whatever "protection fee" Iran wants to charge ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

[ferbivore]

How are these equivalent? Yes, if you've started a pointless unjust war that you can't win, the right thing to do is say mea culpa, accept whatever fees the other party charges and fuck off forever. Not try your best to start WWIII just because, hell, we already killed 3000 civilians, might as well try to beat our high score from Iraq, right?

[hardbass]

I believe IDF accepts foreign volunteers if they are Jewish. I could be wrong. If you are a jew, you can join now. You don't have to wait for the USA to send troops.

[ButlerianJihad]

I volunteered on the condition that they send Gal Gadot to train me. After I signed all the papers, Netta Barzilai showed up on my doorstep!

[frollogaston]

lol, absolutely brutal joke out of nowhere

[danbruc]

Ground troops. Not going to happen or will become a disaster. And even if, what exactly would be their mission?

[ceejayoz]

> Not going to happen or will become a disaster.

The one coherent rule of this administration is that "will become a disaster" is not a part of the decision making process.

[colpabar]

to die for israel

[logicchains]

The alternative is it just destroy all their oil infrastructure and wait for the regime to collapse from lack of funds. But Trump doesn't want to do that (or let Israel do it) because he dreams of taking all that oil for himself and his buddies like in Venezuela.

[danbruc]

If you do that, the oil, gas, and desalination infrastructure of the Gulf states will go down together with Iran. And besides that, why do you want to fight Iran to begin with?

[jimbob45]

This gets downvoted and ignored in every thread I see, not just on this website. But how is this not obviously the answer? We know Russia and China are funneling money to Iran so it would be a double win to drain their coffers too.

Morality aside, I just don’t see how this has been ignored. I know there is a large push for peace by many of the leaders of Iran and it turns out decentralized power can be a double-edged sword. Still, they can’t hold out forever.

[frollogaston]

Morality aside, I don't see how we'd benefit from this. I do see how Israel would benefit, that's why they keep pushing us to do it.

[inigyou]

Because destroying the world's oil infrastructure guarantees the collapse of the USA?

[strictnein]

People have been saying we're going to invade Iran for almost 25 years now. It's always just about to happen, yet never does.

[Braxton1980]

Who has been saying that?

[dudisubekti]

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

-Thucydides' Melian Dialogue

Given how clownish the US is handling this war, I'm afraid you just have to get used to it.

[penguin_booze]

No-one in their right mind wants to support IRGC. But, to see an egotistic, deranged, clown and the entire circus getting slapped in the face, is very satisfying to watch.

[holoduke]

Yes true, but also anyone in Iran no matter what part your from wants the US gone in the region. The US is seen as responsible for allowing slavery in many golf states. It's also responsible for unfair businesses. And seen as a mafia state that steals resources.

[dzonga]

unfortunately- you've terrorists & warmongers governing all 3 parties in this war.

[megous]

Yes. American attack on Iran did not help anything though, and threw a lot of countries and people into pretty bad situation.

Hard to like anyone in this situation.

[regularization]

And what happened before then? Iran had a secular prime minister, Mossadegh, but the UK and US supported, among others, conservative clerics to overthrow that elected government to put in a dictatorship.

Then in the 1970s the CIA provided SAVAK with the names of secular left opposition to arrest and execute.

So spare me talk about foreigners supporting religious fanatics, the western establishment did so for decades.

I for one don't want my tax dollars used to bomb schools in Iran.

[ajross]

This is absolutely 100% true, which is why deliberately destroying all the pre-existing structural deterrents to their bad behavior was such a disaster.

Iran did bad things, but not as much as they could. Now they're doing more bad things and we can't stop them.

[llm_nerd]

Almost no one finds "alignment" with the IRGC.

Instead this is a conflict where all sides are garbage. It's a conflict where we hope that everyone loses.

On the one side you have a terrorism-sponsoring theocracy that wants to force stone-age beliefs on its people, while exporting mayhem elsewhere. On the other you have Iran. (ba-dum-tss!)

Seriously, though, everyone involved with this conflict are bad actors. The US has bombed some 8 countries so far this year, threatened literal allies such that they got blood supplies ready for an invasion, is busy looting Venezuela like a busted pirate shithole -- basically Somalia -- is starving Cuba, is terroristically blowing up random boats by titling them "narco-terrorists", and is headed by a criminal rapist PoS that is rapidly turning the country into an idiocracy while their military is headed by a ChatGPT spouting imbecile. Israel is a war-criming pariah that pushed their luck a little too far and it turns out you can only bank on "but the holocaust" for so long while you're a rogue hermit nation that has vile behaviours and habits.

It's only in context that Iran, far down in the depths of garbage nations, somehow comes out looking like the better party in the conflict.

[throwaway836123]

I totally agree with most of what you’ve said. The only part I disagree with is the whitewashing of what the IRGC has done across the region for years. Dismissing or minimizing its actions/impact simply because we also oppose other bad actors is, imo, a critical mistake.

[MomsAVoxell]

PROSECUTE ALL WAR CRIMINALS.

But, start with YOUR OWN FIRST.

Only then will you have the moral altitude to "go after theirs".

Not until WE have prosecuted OUR war criminals, will we have the precedent to prosecute any other nations' war criminals [1].

So, get on with it, citizen. Hold your government accountable. The people always get the governments they deserve.

[1] - No, "the West" is not morally capable of going after Putin, Netanyahu, etc. Not until we start prosecuting our own war criminals with real, effective results.

[boondongle]

It's interesting that Cuba, Iran, and even Venezuela all took as part of their identity some sort of adversarial position with the United States (although Venezuela was post-Chavez). The US is currently treating them, to some degree at their word at this point.

Whereas you could look at a place like Vietnam that fought its war and moved on, Trump's focus is largely dealing with actors that never did. I suspect the Saudi's won't be the only Nuclear deal signed. So much of this is just the cold war extended, but with North Korea and Iran trying to work their way past non-proliferation. The natural response would also be to arm South Korea and possibly Japan. All of which would have been the West's natural response to non-proliferation being violated.

I get the perception, but much of this is decades in the making and almost everyone involved including the US should have sued for peace years ago. Actual peace. Not, "we're not firing rockets but Israel can't exist."

[runtime_terror]

You mean the countries the US has physically and economically attacked for decades having resentment for that?

As for Vietnam, they're suffering from tariffs, why are you assuming they're also no negatively affected by the Trump admin?

[imjonse]

I doubt you'll find many people here who are in alignment with a bigoted and criminal regime such as Iran's and its military.

What may be misinterpreted as sympathy for them is sympathy for the suffering Iranians, and antipathy for the criminal and bigoted US foreign policy especially in the Middle East. This did not start with Trump's recent idiotic game; Iran's only democratically elected president so far was toppled in 1953 by the CIA at the request of Churchill, because they felt Iran's oil does not belong to the Iranian people but to British Petroleum.

[nextaccountic]

Good thing tjat Trump and Netanyahu ensured the IRGC will stay in power for many years to come, then