[HN Gopher] The United States and Israel have launched a major a...
___________________________________________________________________
The United States and Israel have launched a major attack on Iran
https://archive.ph/VqSqj
Author : lavp
Score : 932 points
Date : 2026-02-28 06:34 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnn.com)
| YZF wrote:
| EDIT: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-february-28-2026/
| csomar wrote:
| Crypto going down while Gold going up (on XAUt) suggests the
| market thinks this war is not going to go necessarily to the
| US/Israel advantage.
| dlahoda wrote:
| why?
|
| is not crypto going down on any "multinational"* war?
|
| *war amid thai and kambodgia is not "multinational" kind of,
| just example of not any
| csomar wrote:
| There wasn't a war between the Siam and Khmer, just some
| clashes plus their conflict is irrelevant to the rest of the
| world. I am not aware of crypto going down during that time?
| If I remember correctly it was close to ATH.
| breppp wrote:
| as iran is a major player in crypto money laundering then it
| could price its fall
|
| https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602279443
| Aliabid94 wrote:
| Gotta derail any peace talks!
| abdusco wrote:
| Can't have Gaza have relief for a second!
| yoavm wrote:
| What does this have to do with Gaza? One would think that if
| the IDF is busy in Iran, it will probably be less busy in
| Gaza.
| torlok wrote:
| Everything. A new conflict distracts from the ongoing
| genocide and allows its perpetrators to stay in power.
| yonisto wrote:
| LOL. The US is on it too. So what you have to say for yourself
| now?
| piping_pony wrote:
| What peace talks? The ones where for over a year Iran refused
| to deescalate their nuclear war program and the now Europe
| range ballistic missiles?
| RobertoG wrote:
| You are lying, they have been trying to avoid this war in any
| possible way. But Israel wanted this war before they lost the
| support of the USA population (that it's happening fast) or
| they have a less accommodating USA president.
| Revanche1367 wrote:
| I agree about Israel fast losing support among the general
| public here but the idea of a less accommodating executive
| or legislative branch in the US for Israel is unthinkable.
| Not unless the system is changed from the ground up in
| dramatic fashion. The two most relevant branches of
| government in this country are completely beholden to
| Israel and anybody denying it is a zionist shill.
| seydor wrote:
| Thankfully the stock market is closed
| rvz wrote:
| That _always_ happens before an expected event or attack on
| another country.
| throwawa1 wrote:
| Casino.
| throwawa1 wrote:
| Nothing more important than dow 50,000
| throwawa1 wrote:
| * "dollars"
| pear01 wrote:
| Speaking of markets... Polymarket was trading yes on this
| happening at quite interesting odds, "yes" was trading at
| around 30C/ or better over the next few days just a few hours
| ago...
|
| I was quite surprised to see it that low... and also to find it
| is inaccessible for trading if a US national. Just looking at
| the platform it seems predominantly US driven so I gather many
| people are willfully attempting to breach the ToS (and probably
| lie to the IRS) when using it...
| johnbarron wrote:
| At this moment, dont know what looks more terrifying. This war
| the US just got itself into, or the contents of the unreleased
| Epstein files...
| popalchemist wrote:
| They must be commensurate, because one is meant to drown out
| the other.
| ourguile wrote:
| NYT gift link:
| https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/28/world/iran-strikes-t...
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Seems that they are behaving intelligently - pummeling the IRGC.
| If the IRGC fails the public will probably have a bit of small
| talk with the regime officials and functionaries while the
| regular army and police will probably look vague amused from the
| sides.
| johnbarron wrote:
| >> Seems that they are behaving intelligently
|
| You seem to have missed the little detail the US is now at war.
|
| There was a deal with Iran, but Trump throw it away because was
| closed by Obama and Israel did not like it...
| riffraff wrote:
| well, they were one week away from a nuke, as usual.
| throwawa1 wrote:
| since 1992!
| wafflemaker wrote:
| There's an Israeli newspaper from 1984 saying it's a month
| away. Definitely more than a month passed between '84 and
| '92.
|
| Btw. They ARE not that far away from the bomb, after they
| enriched uranium as a consequence of Trump (in his first
| term) cancelling the Obama treaty.
|
| But they ARE a theocracy and Ajatollah Chamenei released an
| order (fatwa) forbidding Iran from obtaining and using an
| a-bomb. The new religious leader might change the religious
| law tho. I mean the one that comes after Chamenei becomes a
| martyr.
|
| Funny how, knowing just a little bit more, it all really
| looks like nonsense created for illiterate, just to take
| their attention off of Epstein Pedophile Scandal.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| The concept of nuclear brinkmanship is part of accepted WMD
| doctrine. A country can maintain a fixed short interval away
| from weaponization for decades. It is widely accepted that Iran
| does have a military nuclear program; the amount of material
| enriched, the enrichment level achieved and the hardening of
| the involved facilities are an open testament to that (there
| are many other intelligence signals that we are not privy to).
| riffraff wrote:
| I think you're missing the point: a constant justification
| for bombing Iran is that they are one month, one week, or a
| couple months from building a nuclear bomb.
|
| If _that_ was true, obviously they would have built one buy
| now. Being one year away from building would be non-urgency
| inducing.
|
| The constant lying about timelines does not imply Iran does
| not enrich uranium, but, as you remember, after the last
| bombing the leaders of the USA and Israel said they had
| completely obliterated Iran's nuclear program. Except,
| apparently After six months they are one week away from a
| nuke again.
|
| This seems to indicate the USA should be bombing Iran every
| few weeks, forever, just in case they get a bit faster next
| time.
|
| Except, when we don't have any scandal or other crisis going
| on, then Iran does not seem to be getting a nuke quickly. I
| wonder why.
| breppp wrote:
| > If that was true, obviously they would have built one buy
| now. Being one year away from building would be non-urgency
| inducing.
|
| Reread your parent comment, the concept of a threshold
| nuclear state is that they are constantly a month away, for
| years. That's the entire point, being effectively a nuclear
| state without holding a nuclear weapon
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| Yeah, it's a form of nuclear deterrence, one that does
| not need an actual nuclear weapon to sort of, kinda work.
|
| The problem I have with this doctrine is that if it's
| supposed to deter an opponent who already has a nuclear
| deterrent, they may decide their deterrent is not so
| deterring anymore and actively go and use it against you.
|
| The whole idea of nuclear deterrence relies on all
| parties being rational and sensible about nuclear weapons
| use, but I don't see a lot of rationality in the current
| eventuality.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| I mean, we all understand this. We also all understand
| that "Iran is one week away from a nuclear weapon" is a
| so-stupid-its-amazing-it-works wordgame that is intended
| to fool the general public into thinking "wow! Well we
| better go in NOW!", because without qualifiers, it sounds
| like "they are literally going to have a bomb in one week
| if we DON'T go in now". If, however, the talking heads on
| CNN explained this ("Iran has stopped one week short of
| obtaining a nuclear weapon, they are holding there as a
| form of nuclear deterrence"), then the public would
| (rightly) realize that this is not really any different
| from what the USA does. The USA has this whole convoluted
| "defcon" system where we go from "20 minutes away from a
| nuclear weapon" to "the nuclear weapon is headed for you
| now". Hmm, sounds like the same strategy, with different
| steps.
| nkrisc wrote:
| We need to get the Iranians working on nuclear fusion instead.
| ozgrakkurt wrote:
| They were going to get AGI before US but don't worry, the last
| openai funding and this war will save US
| HNisCIS wrote:
| Currently an absolute shit load of C17s landing in Germany after
| leaving the PG region. I guess we know which country finally
| caved and let the US use them for whatever fresh conquest this
| is.
| fjfaase wrote:
| Germany is one of the most pro-Israel countries and known for
| using excessive police voilance against pro-Palestina
| protestors and strongly denies that there is a genocide going
| on in Gaza.
| etyhhgfff wrote:
| And its not allowed to film the police crimes. They can
| lawfully demand to turn your camera off, because of privacy
| laws. Welcome to Germany.
| api wrote:
| What a gift to the deeply unpopular Iranian regime. Nothing
| galvanizes support for whatever-you-have more than an external
| threat.
|
| Think about it. If someone actually bombed or invaded the
| continental US you'd have woke libs cheering for Donald Trump.
|
| The Iranian regime may fall, but it'll be like Iraq. We'll get
| something like ISIS out of it, or worse, and the place will be a
| complete basketcase of civil war for 25+ years. Or we'll be there
| for 25 years in another "forever war." Bravo.
| Acrobatic_Road wrote:
| Do you have any better ideas or is it your position that evil
| dictators get to rule forever?
| wafflemaker wrote:
| >Do you have any better ideas or is it your position that
| evil dictators get to rule forever?
|
| If president Trump doesn't declare martial law, start a civil
| war, military coup or change the constitution of the USA, he
| will stop ruling in 3 years. We can wait that long.
| HNisCIS wrote:
| Things were starting to come undone naturally then we decided
| to 3rd party the whole thing
|
| Do you think the people fighting ICE in the streets of
| Minneapolis would welcome a joint Chinese+North Korean
| decapitation strike on Washington and cruise missiles flying
| over Portland?
| beeflet wrote:
| how about a negotiating a peace deal between the Israel and
| Iran wherein they both agree to give up nuclear weapons and
| allow for IAEA inspections
| api wrote:
| The Iranian people overthrow their government and establish
| what they want?
|
| My point is that an outside force coming in will _help_ the
| current regime and /or the ideas behind it. Even if the
| current regime falls, democratic or pro-Western ideas in Iran
| will be seen as aligned with the invading force and rejected
| by many people who might otherwise be open to them.
|
| Is there anyone who likes being invaded by a foreign power,
| ever?
| card_zero wrote:
| The British in 1688 (Glorious Revolution, when they were
| invaded by the Dutch).
| fyredge wrote:
| Provide aid to the local population and provide support to
| grassroots resistance. Things do not need to be flashy to be
| effective
| anonnon wrote:
| > Think about it. If someone actually bombed or invaded the
| continental US you'd have woke libs cheering for Donald Trump.
|
| Judging by how they responded to the assassination attempt(s)
| on Trump and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I don't really
| believe that.
| beeflet wrote:
| most liberals do not support the assassination of
| politicians. after the guy got killed, there was a massive
| search on social media where right wingers were looking for
| anyone who mocked him, and they got like a handful of people.
| api wrote:
| You're mistaking attention bait on social media for majority
| opinion. Almost nobody IRL sympathized with Kirk's shooter or
| wants to see people shot.
|
| Social media is brain poison.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| One of the main reasons Iraq is like Iraq is the Iranian
| meddling and their proxy organizations which operate in Iraq
| with impunity. The Iraqi government is entirely subservient to
| the Iranians.
|
| As the recent wave of protests in Iran came after the 12 days
| where Iranian regime was dealt a massive blow, I think your
| analysis is wrong. Iranians consider this an opportunity. Also,
| the scale of violence unleashed on the Iranian public by the
| regime is staggering; it's not about the regime being simply
| "unpopular".
| seattle_spring wrote:
| > Think about it. If someone actually bombed or invaded the
| continental US you'd have woke libs cheering for Donald Trump.
|
| Huh? If anything, he'd try to put blame on "Antifa" and "the
| radical left."
| mint5 wrote:
| >"Think about it. If someone actually bombed or invaded the
| continental US you'd have woke libs cheering for Donald Trump"
|
| I think this is a scenario Steven miller fantasizes about while
| playing with action figures but that's the closest it gets to
| being real.
|
| Sure derogatory terms for liberals, as you term the left, would
| support the armed forces if China invaded hawaii but expecting
| them to also support Trump is fantasy. Like supporting America
| and supporting Donald Trump are entirely different matters and
| usually divergent.
| kome wrote:
| shameful for the west, and a tragedy. leave iran alone. defending
| the mullahs wasn't exactly on my bingo card, but here we are...
|
| please, can somebody in the US or Israel have an "are we the
| baddies" epiphany?
| dismalaf wrote:
| https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/27/i...
|
| > defending the mullahs wasn't exactly on my bingo card, but
| here we are...
|
| Propaganda is a hell of a drug.
| m90 wrote:
| So how do the recurring airstrikes help the protesters?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Easy: decapitate the leadership of the military, IRGC,
| Basij and let the revolution stand a chance.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| Except not, the Iranian revolutionary system is very much
| designed around the desire to be able to rapidly replace
| people. The list of targets for a decapitation strike
| might just be way too long to be feasible.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Kill enough that the rest decides to flee for Moscow
| rather than risk getting lynched.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| Much easier said than done. But hey, perhaps this will be
| the biggest and greatest air campaign ever.
| dismalaf wrote:
| It's the biggest military buildup since 2003. Kinda looks
| like they plan on overthrowing the regime. Which would be
| amazing for world peace considering Iran is building drones
| for Russia and supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. But we'll
| see...
| JasonADrury wrote:
| > considering Iran is building drones for Russia
|
| Not a meaningful supplier anymore, Russia just took the
| designs and onshored the manufacturing.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Russia is building Shahed derivatives themselves, Iran is
| not a significant supplier of anything besides the
| design.
| tastyface wrote:
| Because historically, we have a fantastic record when it
| comes to regime change.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Japan and Germany turned out great.
| tastyface wrote:
| Yeah -- it only took a world war, massive global
| alliances, and tens of millions of deaths. Also, I'm not
| sure how political and military competence from about a
| century ago has any relevance to today.
| suzzer99 wrote:
| And a whole lot of fail ever since.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It's the biggest military buildup since 2003. Kinda
| looks like they plan on overthrowing the regime. Which
| would be amazing for world peace
|
| Almost as amazing for world peace as when the US
| overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime and gave birth to the
| Islamic State.
| tim333 wrote:
| Get the guys who got them - they seem cheerful
| https://x.com/visegrad24/status/2027840034150178952
| epsters wrote:
| > 30,000 in 2 days - half the 2-year death toll of Gaza ;
| With no artillery , air-strikes or heavy weapons, without
| million-man armies facing off in pitched battles, without
| health system collapsing with 100s of thousands of injuries
| in 48 hours, photos or satellite imagery of mass graves and
| bodies littering the streets
|
| Propaganda is a hell of a drug.
| dismalaf wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Hutus_in_the_Fir
| s...
|
| Lots of genocides have been carried out with primitive
| weapons, even recently. Remember, the protesters in Iran
| were mostly unarmed...
| epsters wrote:
| A lot of them were armed as well based on the death toll
| for security forces. Again where is the evidence for all
| this. The Iranian government published the names and
| details for the 3000-odd death-toll they claimed. The
| 30,000 number is from diaspora, citing 'anonymous health
| and government officials' - Who all seem to be linked to
| Pahlavi, Israel and US-backed sources all trying to
| manufacture a case for the war they are now waging. If
| the real number is > 10x then giving names should be very
| easy for CIA and Mossad.
|
| All this is just a excuse, when this whole war is about
| Israel's national security interest and hegemonic
| ambitions. The "negotiations" were entirely over the
| Nuclear program, ballistic program and proxy forces - The
| protestors, human rights, democracy none of it were even
| mentioned. Netanyahu didn't visit the White House _6
| times_ over the last year to advocate for the protestors.
| kranke155 wrote:
| And you think the US, now currently sliding into
| authoritarianism itself, will install an enlightened
| democracy upon the Iranians?
|
| This is WW3 in slow motion. The goal is to takeover Eurasia
| and contain the Russian-Chinese alliance by eating away at
| the edges and removing all unaligned or hostile energy
| sources.
| tdeck wrote:
| Remember how much toppling Sadam Hussein, killing a million
| Iraqis, rounding up and torturing thousands of random Iraqi
| civilians, destroying most of the country's vital
| infrastructure, and selling their oilfields to American
| companies at bargain prices helped Iraqis? It's going to be
| the same for Iran. There's going to be massive suffering.
| kranke155 wrote:
| But at the end of 1 milion deaths (est.) Iraqi oil was
| dollarized.
|
| Saddam had been selling dollars for euros and talking
| about shifting his oil to other currencies for years.
| 2003 put an end to that - it was literally the first
| thing that was done by the provisional Govt. was to make
| sure all Iraqi oil was sold in dollars.
|
| The Petrodollar was not in jeopardy anymore, and for the
| post-1971 system, that was essential. Same thing is now
| happening with Iran and Venezuela. The real goal is -
| China must not be allowed to have substantial sources of
| energy that are not priced in dollars.
| znpy wrote:
| Any kind of decent democracy would be better than the
| iranian regime.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Killing people that blind women for refusing to wear headscarf
| is always a good deed.
|
| It may be infeasible to do it, or bad idea because of
| geopolitical or similar reasons, but no - in Iran's regime case
| - we are not the baddies.
| tgv wrote:
| There's no way you can defend the Iranian leadership. Toppling
| them is not shameful, just like ousting Saddam Hussein was IMO
| reasonable. The problem is what happens afterwards.
| epsters wrote:
| Trump launching bunker-busters on his midterm chances. Which
| depending on how bad it goes, potentially means impeachment and
| prison. Whatever it is the Israelis have on him, it must be good.
|
| Works out great for Netanyahu though as is customary. He can be
| PM for a while longer and stave off his own impending trial and
| imprisonment. If this goes well for Israel, he might even get
| that pardon that Trump campaigned for tirelessly.
| weatherlite wrote:
| I don't see Trump in prison, that's just not in his DNA.
| deaux wrote:
| He'd definitely off himself in a bunker, in line with his
| great idol.
| padjo wrote:
| Not a chance. He hasn't even got the strength in his
| convictions to do that. Trump is just an opportunist, he'd
| go down like Jerry Lundegard at the end of Fargo.
| drivebyhooting wrote:
| Please, can the administration do something useful for America
| instead of... whatever this is?
|
| Can we follow the age old adage WWJD?
|
| What would (Xi) Jinping do?
| anonnon wrote:
| > What would (Xi) Jinping do?
|
| Make himself dictator for life and purge his party of
| dissenters?
| drivebyhooting wrote:
| Yes and then what? Bankrupt his empire by getting into global
| wars? Yeah sure.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| But also expand through trade and renewables, rather than war
| and oil.
|
| Much nuance, wow.
| Freedom2 wrote:
| Luckily that can never happen in America.
| danny_codes wrote:
| Sure it can't. History suggests democracy is fleeting and
| unusual.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| I was discussing this with a friend today. It just feels like
| there's no point to these actions.
|
| Not in the sense of "I don't ideologically agree with our
| decision to do this," but in the sense of, "I do not see how this
| accomplishes any ideological or practical goal."
|
| What are they trying for? Regime change in Iran? No more Iranian
| nuclear program? There barely was one before. Keeping Israel
| safe? It's been an open secret for years that Iran is not a real
| threat to Israel, because any action it took against Israel would
| be existential for Iran and its leadership.
|
| A US president who vocally and repeatedly promised he would not
| start new conflicts keeps starting them, and there's not even a
| reason. It's infuriating. I have my partisan opinions, but that
| should not be a partisan statement! It's just disturbing!
| renewiltord wrote:
| Well, they're probably killing thousands of their people there.
| This country was once aligned with us. We may yet have an ally
| there.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| If we attacked every country in the world killing thousands
| of its own people we'd be at war with half the world right
| now.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Including the US.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Hey, we can't save them all. But maybe we can save some of
| them.
| gen2brain wrote:
| Sure, throw several thousand bombs on them. That surely
| will help. They send kisses currently and are very happy
| they and their children are dying.
| Cipater wrote:
| The US government doesn't give a single damn about the
| Iranian people.
| DecoySalamander wrote:
| It would be highly impractical to go to war with all of
| them at once, but USA can still fix one country at time.
| Venezuella, Iran, hopefully Cuba next.
| somenameforme wrote:
| They were only aligned with us after we overthrew their
| democratic secular government in 1953, and installed an
| unpopular authoritarian monarchy as sole leader. The reason
| we overthrew their government is because they felt we were
| ripping them off in oil deals and wanted the right to audit
| and cancel those deals (and renationalize their oil fields)
| if we weren't playing fair. Then in 1979 that puppet
| government was overthrown in a "real" revolution, which gave
| birth to the Islamic Republic of Iran which, for some reason,
| always had a chip on its shoulder against the West.
|
| The protests in Iran today are almost certainly being
| extensively backed by the CIA and other US organizations. Do
| not mistake a minority as necessarily representing much more
| than themselves. Of course they _might_ (I certainly don 't
| have any particular insight in the "real" Iran), but you
| could certainly see something similar happening in the US
| with extreme groups, left or right wing, becoming visibly
| active if they were able to find a strong backing/organizing
| power that made them believe that they could genuinely
| overthrow the government. The point being that the actions
| and claims of those groups would not necessarily represent
| the US at large.
| breppp wrote:
| The point is preventing another North Korea style nuclear
| blackmail state.
|
| Iran has negotiated like no one will ever attack it, and that
| was a correct assumption for decades
|
| However, due to Iran's overly aggressive use of questionably
| rational proxies, Hamas has dragged it into a regional conflict
| where it lost most of its proxies power.
|
| After the last war, it also is no longer a threshold state, so
| the only leverage they had left was ballistic missiles, which
| were also handled quite reasonably by Israeli air defense.
|
| In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a
| nuclear deal that heavily restricts Iran's ability to enrich as
| well as ICBM, trigger with existing uranium stockpiles removed.
|
| As Iran due to ideological reasons refused, and IMO had
| miscalculated this will be a win-win, as losing will quell the
| protests, the only thing really left is the metaphorical stick
| ivraatiems wrote:
| > In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a
| nuclear deal that heavily restricts Iran's ability to enrich,
| and as Iran due to ideological reasons refused, and IMO
| miscalculated this will be a win-win, as losing will quell
| the protests, the only thing really left is the metaphorical
| stick
|
| Didn't we have one of those a few years ago? I wonder what
| happened to it /s
|
| Seriously, though: how can Iran both be so powerful we must
| avoid it becoming a blackmail state, and so weak and feckless
| it's not a threat to anyone?
|
| And didn't we already attack them to stop them from getting
| nuclear capabilities?
| breppp wrote:
| > Didn't we have one of those a few years ago? I wonder
| what happened to it /s
|
| Yes, although it had merit it was far worse than what can
| be signed now, especially the sunset clause was problematic
|
| > Seriously, though: how can Iran both be so powerful we
| must avoid it becoming a blackmail state, and so weak and
| feckless it's not a threat to anyone?
|
| that's the nature of nuclear weapons, your conventional
| force can be abysmal (pretty much NK situation vs US) and
| yet you can create epic destruction
|
| > And didn't we already attack them to stop them from
| getting nuclear capabilities?
|
| Yes, the thing here is the long term goal of signing a
| deal, whose main goal is removing the existing highly
| enriched uranium from Iran and restricting their ability to
| redevelop nuclear capabilities. Essentially this is the
| part where "Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other
| means" (to highly paraphrase), because the alternative to a
| deal is maintenance attacks such as these every two years
| testdelacc1 wrote:
| The contradiction is that they're weak _at this minute_ -
| militarily and economically and politically. But they won't
| be this weak in the future.
|
| - Military - their regional proxies destroyed, missile and
| drone stocks low, provably weak air defences.
|
| - Economically - the currency is worthless, extreme
| inflation for seven years and hyper inflation for a few
| months, the economy is currently producing nothing due to
| unrest, they have a massive water shortage of their own
| making. They have no goods worth exporting. Their oil is
| sanctioned, meaning only China will buy from them and at a
| steep discount. And oil is extremely cheap at this minute.
|
| - Politically - they have no friends willing to bail them
| out. Russia has no money to spare. China doesn't care about
| anyone outside of China. North Korea is even poorer. All
| sections within Iranian society detest the mullahs running
| the government. They're hanging on by killing tens of
| thousands of protestors.
|
| Trump bets that Iran's leaders are at their weakest since
| their war with Saddam ended in 1988. Meaning now is the
| best time to negotiate a deal where they hand over their
| fissile material and uranium enrichment equipment. In
| return they could get a heavy water reactor(s) that
| produces energy but no fissile material.
|
| If he lets this opportunity slip Iran could fix all of
| their many problems in a year or three. Manufacture more
| missiles and drones. Build up their proxies once more.
| Maybe the price of oil recovers. Russia's war ends and they
| aid Iran best they can. The economy recovers and the
| Iranian people stop trying to overthrow the government.
| Maybe a conflict starts elsewhere that draws America's full
| attention.
|
| Will Trump get that deal? Probably not. That fissile
| material is the only leverage the mullahs have. If they
| give it up they'll be toppled like the other dictators who
| gave up their weapons programs - Gaddafi and Saddam.
|
| But if you don't ask you don't get, right?
| RiverStone wrote:
| Very good analysis. I think most of the world doesn't
| quite understand how bad the currency crisis is right now
| in Iran
|
| It was one of the primary triggers for the protests.
| People are very upset about the economy and willing to
| protest and die for it.
| nielsbot wrote:
| Does Iran not have the same rights of self-defense and
| sovereignty as the US and Israel?
|
| > The point is preventing another North Korea style nuclear
| blackmail state
|
| The US and Israel are currently nuclear blackmail states. The
| rational move for Iran to prevent itself from being bullied
| is to have nukes like North Korea.
|
| > In this situation it is a fair request by the US
|
| Fair if you're the US, sure.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| 190 countries signed the non proliferation treaty for a
| very good reason, so no they don't have the right to it in
| any sense of the word on the international stage.
|
| Especially not when they're mass murdering protestors and
| funding islamic extremism left and right
| blurbleblurble wrote:
| Okay so neither then does Israel yet here we are a
| country with illicit nuclear weapons that murdered scores
| of thousands of civilians has what standing to do what
| now?
| azernik wrote:
| Israel never signed the NPT, like India and Pakistan.
| blurbleblurble wrote:
| Oh wow cool even more unhinged than I realized
| iknowstuff wrote:
| Opposition to Iran's regime does not imply support for
| Israel's
| locallost wrote:
| The US is also murdering protesters and funding Christian
| extremists. So what now?
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| They actually do. And I say it as a European and I think
| the Iranian regime is as bad as it gets, and won't shed a
| tear if they all get executed.
|
| What recent months show us, is that it's a rough world -
| there are no friends. I'm rooting for European countries
| to accelerate their nuclear weapons programs. In an ideal
| world, of course I would be against. But the world is far
| from ideal. The current alternative is being dictated the
| rules by Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. Thanks, but no.
| haritha-j wrote:
| As opposed to America who are only non-mass murdering
| protestors.
| HappyPanacea wrote:
| > Does Iran not have the same rights of self-defense and
| sovereignty as the US and Israel?
|
| Iran signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
| general1465 wrote:
| And US signed Budapest Memorandum. Both are equally
| hollow.
| t-3 wrote:
| The former government, a US puppet regime. Why should
| they honor a deal that doesn't benefit them when the US
| and Israel refuse to play by the rules?
| ReptileMan wrote:
| >Does Iran not have the same rights of self-defense and
| sovereignty as the US and Israel?
|
| No. If they wanted self-defense and sovereignty they should
| have become stronger not weaker after the revolution.
| anonnon wrote:
| > The rational move for Iran to prevent itself from being
| bullied is to have nukes like North Korea
|
| North Korea invaded South Korea, stole a US Navy ship (the
| Pueblo, which they still proudly exhibit), dug large
| infiltration tunnels under the DMZ, kidnapped hundreds, or
| even thousands people from SK (and Japan, to a lesser
| extent), and have assassinated, or attempted to
| assassinate, multiple SK heads of state, and perpetrated
| acts of terror like:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_858
|
| What did the US or SK do to them before their nuclear
| program that constituted "bullying?"
| azernik wrote:
| Iran signed the NPT.
|
| The NPT did not exist at the time of the US developing
| nuclear weapons, and it explicitly allows US (and other
| pre-existing nuclear powers') weapons.
|
| Israel, like India and Pakistan, simply never signed it,
| forgoing the international nuclear technology market as a
| consequence but also avoiding a treaty obligation not to
| develop them.
| t-3 wrote:
| That was before the revolution. The revolutionary
| government still honored the deal, but that's been
| obviously a losing move for a while. The whole Middle
| East recognizes that, just look at how many countries
| Pakistan has sharing agreements with recently.
| azernik wrote:
| Treaty obligations do not disappear with a revolution
| t-3 wrote:
| They might not disappear, but it's more like loan sharks
| insisting you must inherit your father's gambling debts
| than anything. The US and Israel have absolutely no place
| criticizing others for breaking agreements in any case.
| randunel wrote:
| Such as the Paris Agreement, right?
| bawolff wrote:
| > The US and Israel are currently nuclear blackmail states.
|
| Neither of these states have at any point said anything on
| the modern era that can be implied to be a threat to nuke
| anybody.
|
| Part of that is because it would be a bad strategy for
| them, but nonetheless "nuclear blackmail state" and
| "nuclear state" is not the same thing.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Trump had done it several times.
| haritha-j wrote:
| Why exactly do you suppose the US gets away with carrying
| out military attack or threatening to carry out military
| attack against a new country every couple of months?
| bawolff wrote:
| Because of their conventional military.
| incrudible wrote:
| No such right exists, except in moral terms, but if you are
| going to invoke morals, the Iranian regime does not hold up
| well. So no, they do not.
|
| Perhaps you will argue that the US or Israel or Pakistan or
| North Korea have conducted themselves in a way where they
| do not have that moral right either, but that is a
| different debate, and either way it is moot because they do
| have them.
| concinds wrote:
| Dictatorships have no "rights". People have rights.
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| Why do you call the concept a "North Korea style nuclear
| blackmail state" and not an "Israel style nuclear blackmail
| state"?
| testdelacc1 wrote:
| Has Israel even officially confirmed they have nukes? And
| who have they blackmailed with the nukes?
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| > Has Israel even officially confirmed they have nukes?
|
| No. There's a number of reasons for this. #1 is Israel's
| policy of "strategic ambiguity" and #2 is that it might
| be illegal to even mention it in Israel. Israel
| prosecuted a whistleblower nuclear scientist for leaking
| state secrets, for example.
|
| > And who have they blackmailed with the nukes?
|
| The US, for one:
|
| "Similarly, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, IDF was again
| outnumbered by the invading Arab armies. Then Israeli PM
| Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered that
| nuclear warheads be readied for launch from missiles and
| aircraft. The Israeli ambassador to the US, Simcha
| Dinitz, met with Henry Kissinger to inform President
| Nixon of "Very serious conclusions" if the US did not
| airlift arms supplies to the IDF. Nixon complied with
| this demand due to the threat of the use of nuclear
| forces. This was the first successful use of the Samson
| option as a threat and tantamount to nuclear blackmail."
|
| from: https://thesvi.org/deconstructing-israels-samson-
| option/
|
| I also recommend:
| https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-
| allow...
|
| The Samson Option enables Israel to blackmail the entire
| Middle East, and do so silently. Turkey or Egypt can't
| afford for Hezbollah to overrun Israel, because Ankara
| and Cairo might get nuked, even if they had nothing to do
| with contributing to Israel's existential crisis. It
| basically forces the whole neighborhood to keep each
| other in check out of sheer self-preservation. Credit
| given where credit due, it's a smart approach on Israel's
| part.
| testdelacc1 wrote:
| I stand corrected. It didn't occur to me they could
| blackmail someone other than their neighbours.
| watwut wrote:
| I dont see how it is fair from USA to demand others dont have
| nukes. Ukraine made mistake of trusting ISA and giving them
| away and now USA basically support Russia in their invasion.
|
| Iran is a bad guy state ... but the "fair" atgunent hwre dont
| apply.
| locallost wrote:
| The biggest blackmail rogue state right now is the US.
| concinds wrote:
| This comment is so wrong. Trump's strikes won't "prevent"
| anything, it's domestic posturing to look tough. You cannot
| bomb your way into regime change.
|
| > After the last war, it also is no longer a threshold state
|
| That's also wrong. Trump claimed Iran's enrichment
| capabilities were totally destroyed, but they weren't.
|
| > In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a
| nuclear deal
|
| America already had a good deal. Trump got rid of it.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| >Iran has negotiated like no one will ever attack it, and
| that was a correct assumption for decades
|
| Iran had a signed agreement, trump cancelled it. Israel
| literally killed Irans negotiators just a few months ago.
| What is this nuclear level ignorance.
| epsters wrote:
| > The point is preventing another North Korea style nuclear
| blackmail state.
|
| North Korea aspires be to be a Israel-style nuclear blackmail
| state.
| mmustapic wrote:
| Iran's nuclear program cannot produce usable nuclear weapons
| just with enriched uranium, so there's no risk at all for
| them to blackmail anybody.
| jopsen wrote:
| > The point is preventing another North Korea style nuclear
| blackmail state.
|
| You can bomb the leadership all day long.
|
| Without boots on the ground the regime will probably
| continue.
|
| I don't see how this stops Iran from building nukes. Sure
| they may have a temporary set back.
|
| But do you think this will change their minds?
|
| Can they even negotiate a resolution with the US. Given that
| the current administration won't honor its own agreements.
|
| Did Trump issue an ultimatum here? And demand something?
| kdheiwns wrote:
| It gets his base fired up and excited.
|
| Some people here might not be American or were too young to
| remember the lead up to the Iraq War, but it was transparently
| bullshit. Many people knew this. But if you dared say that,
| supporters would actively ruin your life. The Dixie Chicks were
| one of the most popular music acts in the US at the time, a
| country band that broke out of country and was getting huge
| appeal across the US. They dared to say they opposed the war.
| Their careers never returned.
|
| Now with social media that isn't completely locked down, some
| voice of opposition can slip through and assure people that,
| yes, this is crazy. No, we don't need to blow the shit out of
| towns across the world. But these social media sites are all
| owned by government-aligned mega billionaires. They're rolling
| out AI that can comment and act very, very human and endorse
| everything the government does. They can auto-police opinions
| and spit out thousands of arguments and messages of harassment
| against them in seconds. Soon they'll be autoblocking any sense
| of disagreement.
|
| It's at that point they can say that this is done to defend
| America. This is done to defend freedom. This desert country
| that's too screwed up to even manage its own internal affairs
| is somehow so dangerous that it's going to destroy the whole
| world with nukes it doesn't even have so we must destroy them
| all now. Dear leader always has your interests at heart. And
| you'll have no info to point to saying otherwise. Everyone who
| dares question it will be mocked, ridiculed, fired. Even if
| this administration fails, the tools are being built and laid
| out for the next, and I really don't know how humanity will
| overcome it. And I hate that I can't have optimism in this
| situation.
|
| This discussion is one where it's worth looking at commenters'
| histories. Many have several pages where the bulk of their
| posts are defending Israel, saying war with Iran is necessary,
| and various related things. It's kind of spooky
| robertjpayne wrote:
| While true for the Iraq war I don't think that holds as true
| anymore. Even a lot of MAGA recognise that getting into wars
| in the Middle East does nothing but cost the taxpayer
| billions/trillions of dollars for nothing to show.
| kdheiwns wrote:
| That's because there's a glimpse of reason that still pokes
| through with influencers sometimes saying "you know, I
| think (thing) might not be good so I hope Trump doesn't do
| it." Then when trump does (thing), they always backpedal
| and say it's great. Pre-election inflation was a problem.
| Now prices are great. Epstein was a problem. Now they say
| nobody cares. War with Iran was bad. In 2 days influencers
| will all have a prepared message supporting it and in 3
| days half the country will absolutely support it.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| Anyone raising their weapon against Israel in the last 20 years
| was armed, supplied, funded, trained and directed by Iran.
| There's a special division called Quds in the IRGC responsible
| just for that. The list includes Hizbollah, Assad's former
| regime in Syria, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Houthis,
| Hizbollah in Iraq and others.
| moxifly7 wrote:
| Israel being an ethnic supremacist state for more than the
| last 20 years [0], on a determined mission to ethnically
| cleanse the indigenous population from their ancestral land
| [1], this comment unintentionally makes Iran sound like the
| good guys in this story. (I do not support any form of
| theocracy).
|
| [0] https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians
| ParentiSoundSys wrote:
| It's a nakedly imperial gambit, the Western ruling classes are
| attempting to deny Middle Eastern oil to Russia and China. Iran
| is their only capable opposition in the region, every other
| Gulf country is a bought-and-paid-for satrapy which just
| cosigned a genocide on its doorstep.
| lucketone wrote:
| Oil to Russia? Please review that
| pjc50 wrote:
| Coals to Newcastle.
| ParentiSoundSys wrote:
| What if I told you the entire country of Russia is not
| actually oil fields, and Iran does export oil to them?
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| It's regime change this time. Trump published a message calling
| for all Iranian military forces to surrender and the Iranian
| people to take over the government.
| baxtr wrote:
| _> No more Iranian nuclear program? There barely was one
| before._
|
| How do you know?
| ivraatiems wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_strikes_on_Irani.
| ..
| lucketone wrote:
| Good 1 hour presentation on youtube
|
| https://youtu.be/SxqipJgtTdk?si=YfWRzjcflhWHR276
|
| (Note: Iran did move some stuff away before the attack)
| RobotToaster wrote:
| The US department of war said last month that it was
| "obliterated"
|
| >No other military in the world could have executed an
| operation of such scale, complexity, and consequence as
| Operation MIDNIGHT HAMMER. Yet the Joint Force did so
| flawlessly and obliterated Iran's nuclear program.
|
| https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/202.
| ..
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| On Israel, is it possible that they feel their influence on US
| foreign policy is waning and they want to push over Iran before
| they can't do it anymore, even if the propaganda in America
| hasn't been sufficiently set up yet to provide cover? Where
| pushing Iran over is useful because having weak neighbors is
| good for their expansion?
|
| Possibly wishful thinking, but that's the only way I can make
| it make sense in my head.
| StephiePirelli wrote:
| Netanyahu has been pushing for the US to attack Iran since
| the 80s, it's been a lifelong dream of his. This has nothing
| to do with self defense.
| RiverStone wrote:
| It's been a lifelong dream of millions of Iranian expats
| ozgrakkurt wrote:
| does anyone seriously believe there can be a good outcome
| of this for iranian people?
|
| I can't make up a story that will be good for iranian
| people in the end. Is there even an example in last 100
| years that started out like this thing is starting out
| and ended well for the people?
| RiverStone wrote:
| I didn't really know much about Iran as a typical
| American until I married an Iranian woman. And then I met
| her family and her friends and I came to love Persian
| people. They're some of the kindest people I've ever met.
|
| What hasn't come up enough in this thread is the currency
| crisis that triggered the protests. The economy is in
| shambles and they're still simmering anger about the
| Mahsa Amini killing.
|
| There Iranian people are tired of being under the thumb
| of the mullahs. They don't want to live under an Islamic
| theocracy.
|
| Millions of Iranians all over the world and inside Iran
| are cheering us on. They're done. Yes, they're scared and
| they don't know what will come next, but they know what
| they have now is intolerable.
|
| it's possible this could all go badly, but what the
| Iranian people have now is worse. We have to try. Every
| Iranian person I've met is hopeful something better will
| come.
| tempodox wrote:
| You don't unseat the Fraudster in Chief while at war. So
| starting a war is a slightly less conspicuous trick than
| outright preventing relevant elections from taking place.
| deaux wrote:
| It accomplishes the goal of diverting attention away from the
| recent revelations of a pedophile ring among the elites having
| operated from a private island for decades, with current US
| president and serial rapist Trump being best friends with the
| ring leader.
|
| It's bound to be _incredibly_ successful at accomplishing that
| goal.
|
| Similarly, wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were very
| successful in diverting attention away from 15 of the 19 9/11
| hijackers being from Saudi Arabia, and later on from the
| funding provided to one or more of the hijackers by Saudi
| officials. With a certain Ms. Maxwell being asked to join the
| investigatory committee on the event in question.
| Sam6late wrote:
| Yes, but there is also the other elephant in the room. Don't
| underestimate Trump, he may not have read about Michael
| Parenti's explanation of The Assassination of Julius Caesar:
| where he argues that Caesar was killed not as a tyrant
| threatening republican liberty, but as a popular reformer who
| challenged the Roman oligarchy's wealth and power and thirst
| for wars. Maybe Parenti doesn't explicitly equate JFK's
| killing to Caesar's, the similarity lies in both being elite-
| driven assassinations to preserve power: Caesar by Roman
| senators against reforms, akin to theories of JFK's killing
| over anti-war shifts and perceived threats to entrenched
| interests. Critics note Parenti's JFK work critiques official
| narratives as state cover-ups, mirroring his Caesar "people's
| history" inversion of "gentlemen historians."
| slim wrote:
| Their endgame is genocide. They will be happy to only enslave
| the Iranian people too. Seriously, USA and its colony in
| Palestine are colonialist supremacists and they just want to
| extract all the resources and don't mind killing all the people
| of that land.
| bawolff wrote:
| > What are they trying for? Regime change in Iran?
|
| Seems like it. I can't imagine what else they might try for.
|
| I suppose USA might think some shock and awe will result in
| iran making concessions at the bargaining table, but that seems
| unrealistic to me.
|
| > No more Iranian nuclear program? There barely was one before.
|
| That seems very debatable.
|
| > Keeping Israel safe? It's been an open secret for years that
| Iran is not a real threat to Israel, because any action it took
| against Israel would be existential for Iran and its
| leadership.
|
| Well they did take action against israel (you could say they
| were indirectly responsible for oct 7). Now they are facing
| said existential threat.
|
| ---
|
| Ultimately though. Iran has been a major threat to both israeli
| and US interests, largely by funding proxy groups that take
| violent action against those interests. That's your motive for
| a war.
|
| Iran is currently weak, facing multiple internal and eexternal
| crisises.
|
| A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran
| is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the
| reason behind a lot of wars in history.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Yes, when you ask the basic Clauzewitz question about
| "continuation of politics by other means": what are the war
| aims, and how is this action connected to them?
|
| What are the strikes even against?
|
| Do they seriously think that after Iran shot all the street
| revolutionaries, another group will come forward and collapse
| the government?
|
| Are they treating Iran as Big Serbia? It's a very different
| situation!
|
| Or is this just for the Posting?
| RobertoG wrote:
| The point is that Israel can't tolerate any competition in the
| area.
|
| Wesley Clark: "We're going to take out 7 countries in 5 years":
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWxKn-1S8ts
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| Probably a continuation of the 'mowing the lawn' strategy (as
| used against the Palestinians). Every now and again use massive
| military force to set back Iran's capabilities, time and effort
| they spend rebuilding is time and effort _not_ spent causing
| problems elsewhere.
| vimy wrote:
| They are boxing in China. Taking away China's oil. First
| Venezuela. Now Iran.
|
| Decoupling from China while taking out China's allies is the
| overarching foreign policy.
| tim333 wrote:
| Yeah, regime change and no nukes.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| My previous comment:
|
| The most salient lesson of the post-Cold War era: Get nukes or
| die trying.
|
| A nation's relationship to other states, up to and especially
| including superpowers, is completely different once it's in the
| nuclear club. Pakistan can host bin Laden for years and still
| enjoy US military funding. North Korea can literally fire
| missiles over South Korea and Japan and get a strongly-worded
| letter of condemnation, along with a generous increase in foreign
| aid. We can know, for a fact, that the 2003 Iraq War coalition
| didn't actually believe their own WMD propaganda. If they thought
| that Saddam could vaporize the invasion force in a final act of
| defiance, he'd still be in power today. Putin knows perfectly
| well that NATO isn't going to invade Russia, so he can strip
| every last soldier from the Baltic borders and throw them into
| the Ukrainian meat grinder.
|
| Aside from deterring attack, it also discourages powerful outside
| actors from fomenting revolutions. The worry becomes who gets the
| nukes if the central government falls.
|
| Iran's assumption seems to have been that by permanently
| remaining n steps away from having nukes (n varying according to
| the current political and diplomatic climate), you get all the
| benefits of being a nuclear-armed state without the blowback of
| going straight for them. But no, you need to have the actual
| weapons in your arsenal, ready to use at a moment's notice.
|
| My advice for rulers, especially ones on the outs with major
| geopolitical powers: Pour one out for Gaddafi, then hire a few
| hundred Chinese scientists and engineers and get nuked up ASAP.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Anti-nuclear proliferation should now be treated as crime
| against humanity. Nuclear proliferation is only way to ensure
| world peace. Every single country should get nukes and
| capability to use them against each others. And be fully ready
| to do it.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| Let's bring this idea to an ultimate level- each country to
| have a warhead able to wipe everything, sort of project
| Sundial...
|
| After all if your country is too small, it may be worthless
| to have nukes that probably would be destroyed by neighbors
| on launch...
| Ekaros wrote:
| That would work. Reasonable power balance would be reached.
| And negotiations could happen from equal perspective.
| lucketone wrote:
| One step further: every man, woman and child should have
| a launch button.
|
| (My bet would be: max one day)
| phoronixrly wrote:
| Can't tell if sarcasm
| bombcar wrote:
| https://www.angryflower.com/422.html
| wolfd wrote:
| I hope you and I never get the opportunity to learn how this
| would end. We've had nukes on Earth for less than 100 years,
| do you expect the next few thousand to go that well? Do you
| think in that time, nobody will ever roll a nat 1 on a wisdom
| check?
| HappyPanacea wrote:
| If nukes are so good why Israel isn't safe? Or in other words
| you overestimate how useful nukes are. On contrary for Iran
| them having nukes mean Israel have to guess if coming missiles
| contain nukes or not and whatever to strike back with their own
| nukes where as now they can freely sand missiles without
| escalation concerns.
| padjo wrote:
| Israel isn't safe? They are probably the most well defended
| country on the earth. A very capable domestic military and
| the full power of the US as an attack dog willing to do their
| bidding.
| lucketone wrote:
| They have good defence, but:
|
| - it costs money and attention
|
| - good is not the same as perfect (there are some
| casualties from time to time)
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| >If nukes are so good why Israel isn't safe?
|
| Israeli nukes are the main reason we haven't had regime
| change in Tel Aviv at the hands of a
| Turkish/Egyptian/Saudi/Iranian coalition. Israeli nukes are
| why Iran has had to settle into a pattern of slow, distant,
| annoyance via proxy forces (which lack a capability for
| existentially challenging the IDF).
| necovek wrote:
| Nukes do not help against guerilla warfare: their destructive
| power is so big that they are really unreasonable attack
| weapon, and only a deterring factor instead.
|
| They protect against being "policed" by big world countries.
|
| Eg. if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons, Russia would not
| have been invading them (or are they "protecting" them, as
| promised when they took their nuclear arsenal for
| destruction?). If Iran or Iraq had nuclear weapons, they
| would not have been bombed by US.
| peyton wrote:
| > My advice for rulers ... hire a few hundred Chinese
| scientists and engineers and get nuked up ASAP.
|
| Just need one flight from Pyongyang. Why suggest involving a
| major power given that you've just laid out the strategic need
| for nuclear weapons to deter interference from... major powers?
| Your post lacks coherency.
| 8note wrote:
| opportunity cost-wise, iran could have poured all the money
| they did in nuclear enrichment instead into missiles, air
| defense, etc, and they would not be having as much problems as
| they do now.
|
| nuclear enrichment is extraordinarily expensive and really not
| all that great of a deterrent when you have them. just look at
| fairly recent tussels between india, pakistan and china. Russia
| was invaded and didnt nuke ukraine.
| nielsbot wrote:
| I thought Ukraine surrendered her nukes?
| postsantum wrote:
| Ukraine never had nukes. It's like saying Alabama had to
| give up their nukes after gaining independence
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| That's an idiosyncratic take on the facts that basically
| everyone else agrees to interpret otherwise.
|
| _Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction_
|
| _Ukraine, formerly a republic of the Union of Soviet
| Socialist Republics (USSR) from 1922 to 1991, once hosted
| Soviet nuclear weapons and delivery systems on its
| territory.[1] The former Soviet Union had its nuclear
| program expanded to only four of its republics: Belarus,
| Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. After its dissolution in
| 1991, Ukraine inherited about 130 UR-100N
| intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six
| warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads
| apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling
| approximately 1,700 nuclear warheads that remained on
| Ukrainian territory.[2] Thus Ukraine became the third
| largest nuclear power in the world (possessing 300 more
| nuclear warheads than Kazakhstan, 6.5 times less than the
| United States, and ten times less than Russia)[3] and
| held about one third of the former Soviet nuclear
| weapons, delivery system, and significant knowledge of
| its design and production.[4] While all these weapons
| were located on Ukrainian territory, they were not under
| Ukraine 's control.[5]_
|
| _In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to
| Russia for dismantlement and became a party to the Treaty
| on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange
| for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the
| United States and the United Kingdom to respect Ukrainian
| independence and sovereignty within its existing
| borders.[6][7] Almost twenty years later, Russia, one of
| the parties to the agreement, invaded Ukraine in 2014 and
| subsequently also from 2022 onwards._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass
| _de...
|
| Btw, reference [5], used to justify the absurd claim that
| those weapons were in Ukraine's territory but not under
| its control, goes like this:
|
| {{cite Hansard |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa
| /cm199293/cmhansrd/1993... |title=Nuclear Weapons
| |speaker=[[Jeremy Hanley]] |position=Minister of State
| for the Armed Forces |house=[[House of Commons (United
| Kingdom)|House of Commons]] |volume=227 |date=June 22,
| 1993 |column=154 |access-date=September 9, 2018
| |quote=Some weapons are also possessed by Ukraine,
| Kazakhstan and Belarus, but these are controlled by the
| Commonwealth of Independent States.}}
|
| So it's basically the words of a UK MP assuring his
| audience that, nooo, don't worry, Ukraine doesn't control
| its WMD.
| tokai wrote:
| This is wrong. The gotcha underpinning this point denies
| reality of the situation, that Ukraine had warheads and
| the technical capability to take control of those
| warheads. There is no discussion here.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| Or we can all shoot ourselves in the face. Faster, cheaper, and
| guaranteed to work every time. Ish.
| athrowaway3z wrote:
| I have to wonder how much of this is driven by Israel accounting
| for the risk of less favorable US relationship in the future.
|
| Pre-emptive violence; not even justified with a narrative of
| escalating threat.
|
| Bleak for anybody who knows their history.
| e40 wrote:
| And it happened on a Friday night. Best time of the week for
| the least news impact.
| baq wrote:
| In the great age of grift wars ideally last no more than the
| time between Friday market close and Sunday futures open.
| weatherlite wrote:
| It was Trump or his immediate environmetn who asked Israeli to
| attack Iran first (better optics); Israel would have never done
| this without American approval. Did Israel want this to happen
| though ? Yes. But so did the Americans. I guess the
| negotiations went badly.
| viking123 wrote:
| "Negotiations"
| seydor wrote:
| The US has moved half of its navy in the region, and there are
| doubts about its support?
| replooda wrote:
| "Let's do it now, when they'd still move half their navy
| there for us, rather than in the future, when they might
| not."
| seydor wrote:
| More like "The US has arrived as we asked, and the same
| will happen in the future every time"
| replooda wrote:
| Even assuming that would always hold for the USA as such,
| America isn't necessarily a fixture in Semitic
| eschatology.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| "In the future" is not "now".
|
| Neither the current administration nor Israel are
| particularly popular with the US public today, and those are
| correlated in that Israel has particularly lost support from
| Democrats and Independents in the US, suggesting that a
| change in power (legislative or executive, and especially
| both) in the US government could very easily spell much less
| favorable US policy toward Israel.
| baq wrote:
| Normal people are starting to call themselves goyim and
| aren't afraid to call themselves antisemites anymore. You
| can look at this from many angles (sitting here in Eastern
| Europe watching history repeat itself _again_ in 4 years is
| a very discomforting feeling), but all of them are signs of
| Israel losing US citizenship support at an unprecedented
| velocity.
| pydry wrote:
| >Normal people are starting to call themselves goyim and
| aren't afraid to call themselves antisemites anymore.
|
| Normal people distinguish between Israel and Jews and
| call themselves antizionists. It's Zionists who blur the
| distinction.
|
| There are several countries throughout history where the
| citizens have been absolutely _obsessed_ with their own
| race and considered the crusader state to be the sole
| representative of it. It never ended well.
| swingboy wrote:
| Israel is the Jewish state.
| gryzzly wrote:
| Israel is the jewish state, so all your "antizionist"
| rhetoric is nonsense. The jews perceive "antizionist" as
| antijewish.
| Revanche1367 wrote:
| And they've blurred it so much and thrown around the
| accusation so frequently and with so little hesitancy
| that many people are starting to simply not care anymore.
| swingboy wrote:
| And this is why the Ellisons are quickly ramping up their
| media empire with the purchase of Paramount (which
| included CBS who is now ran by Bari Weiss), the freshly
| inked Warner Brothers deal, and their part ownership of
| US TikTok (of which Oracle hosts the data now).
| dragonwriter wrote:
| No, no one who calls themself an anti-semite is a normal
| person, and the people doing that are still a narrow
| bigoted fringe (though, yes, it is a fringe that Trumpism
| has emboldened tk greater boldness, like many other
| overlapping bigotries, and somewhat paradoxically given
| the way the Trump Administration is itself supportive of
| not only Israel in the broad sense, but of accelerating
| the policies most opposed by the public in particular).
|
| Most of the opponents of Israel and its policies in the
| US are either anti-Zionists who are not and do not
| identify as anti-Semites, or people who don't even
| identify as anti-Zionists just opponents of Israeli
| _policy_. And many in both groups are Jewish themselves.
| palisade wrote:
| That is only 6% of our Navy. Not half.
| epsters wrote:
| More specifically, seems to be driven by Netanyahu's political
| accounting. Starting a potential major war going into mid-terms
| is pretty inconvenient for Trump who could be looking at
| impeachment over Epstein. But Netanyahu is facing trial and
| October-7 investigation commissions more imminently and can't
| wait that long. Netanyahu trumps Trump, evidently.
| riffraff wrote:
| > is pretty inconvenient for Trump who could be looking at
| impeachment over Epstein
|
| I mean, it is a pretty convenient distraction from the
| epstein files tho, so win-win for Trump/Netanyahu
| Simon_ORourke wrote:
| I think just forego the hypocrisy and have the Israeli's move
| the White House over there and put one of their own in it
| instead of pulling the strings.
| bojan wrote:
| Those who know their history also know that the current
| American administration is of a kind that usually ascends
| following the rules, but then never voluntarily leaves power.
|
| So I don't think Israel has anything to fear there.
| tome wrote:
| > the current American administration is of a kind that
| usually ascends following the rules, but then never
| voluntarily leaves power
|
| Sounds like you might be making a very strong claim! Can you
| make it more precise? For example, "President Trump will not
| peaceably transfer power at the end of his current term". Is
| it something you'd be willing to put money on, for example on
| Polymarket?
| bhouston wrote:
| Trump makes a lot of claims of unfair elections, declaring
| a state of emergency and is talking about a third term.
| Hard to really know for real what will happen but it is
| suspicious.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/26/trump-
| ele...
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-
| politic...
| bregma wrote:
| If history is anything to go by, expect a fire at the
| Capitol some time in October resulting in a national
| emergency being declared.
|
| You can take that to your bookie.
| tome wrote:
| Talk is cheap. Are you prepared to put money, or anything
| valuable, where your mouth is?
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| Not OP, but that post clearly was alluding to Hitler coming
| to power democratically. That they don't need to worry was
| a very dark joke. Anyway, it's just history.
| bojan wrote:
| Not just Hitler.
|
| There are more recent examples in Europe, like Putin,
| Orban and Vucic. All of them got elected fairly, and all
| of them engaged in the process of slowly but surely
| breaking democratic institutions and checks and balances
| down. The guidebook is actually exactly the same. Putin
| is now 25 years in power, Orban 16 years and Vucic 14
| years.
|
| You could say that those Eastern European democracies
| were fragile to begin with, but what MAGA is so far very
| much successfully doing is fully matching the existing
| proven guidebook.
|
| If Polymarket were legal in my country I'd actually
| consider betting on it.
| the_gastropod wrote:
| Yea! Suggesting the guy who refuses to acknowledge he lost
| the 2020 election, caused a whole to do on January 6th over
| it, has printed up TRUMP 2026 hats in the White House, and
| constantly "jokes" about being owed a 3rd term might not be
| too interested in following the rules is totally unhinged
| and a "strong claim". And the only way to prove you're
| serious about this opinion is to gamble on it!
| tome wrote:
| > And the only way to prove you're serious about this
| opinion is to gamble on it!
|
| If it's a strong claim it's not much of a gamble, is it?
| Talk is cheap.
| ViewTrick1002 wrote:
| Or ICE ensuring it is a "fair" election with the "correct"
| outcome.
| Revanche1367 wrote:
| Not only the current administration, no US administration in
| the recent past or foreseeable future will not be okay with
| fighting wars for Israel at the cost of American lives and
| wealth. Some might hesitate or push back more than others,
| but the end result is the same.
| Schmerika wrote:
| Literally this week, for the first time ever, a majority of
| Americans polled favored Palestine over Israel.
|
| To be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that's why we're bombing
| Iran today. Just pointing out a data point supporting your
| hypothesis.
| stevenjgarner wrote:
| Paywall : https://archive.ph/M6Ywb
| tomhow wrote:
| Latest update of the page archived here:
| https://archive.ph/VqSqj
| bdangubic wrote:
| we sure dodged a bullet in 2024 elections and elected the right
| people to stop all these senseless wars that were one of the
| cornerstones of the election campaign
| matsemann wrote:
| It's baffling to me that the DNC decided it was more important
| to support Israel than win the election and do good things at
| home.
| robertoandred wrote:
| Harris had all sorts of good things planned at home. It's
| baffling to me that some voters thought it was more important
| to lose the election.
| komali2 wrote:
| Voters don't lose elections, campaigns do. Harris failed,
| and this kind of "turning around of the blame" thing that
| Dems try to do is one of the reasons why they don't win
| elections: they never learn.
| bdangubic wrote:
| you mean election, not elections, right? cause you know,
| 2018, 2020...
| array_key_first wrote:
| The reality is that Trump voters were (are?) dumb as
| rocks and tricked by simple populist messaging. There was
| nothing harris could've done short of succumbing to
| populism herself, and cloaking her campaign in
| dishonesty, fear, and simpleton reasoning.
|
| Maybe she shouldve done that, but you can see why she
| didn't.
| apexalpha wrote:
| How can you look at the current support for Trump and
| conclude you would've won in the US by _not_ supporting
| Israel?
| tdeck wrote:
| Trump won by less than 50% of the vote and there are many
| polls that show the Biden administration's genocide was
| massively demotivating to democratic voters.
| apexalpha wrote:
| Supporting Hamas over Israel would've hurt more,
| probably.
| orwin wrote:
| You can also support neither.
| matsemann wrote:
| False dichotomy.
| apexalpha wrote:
| is it? Because 'that part' of the Democrats were fully in
| support of Hamas. Have you seen the University protests?
|
| If the Dems caved to that they would've alienated 10
| voters for every 1 student that might show up at the
| polls if it doesn't rain.
| matsemann wrote:
| Being against genocide doesn't mean one supports Hamas.
|
| > _student that might show up at the polls if it doesn 't
| rain_
|
| Please don't do that. Your view of other people is quite
| sad.
| apexalpha wrote:
| These are statistics, not views of people. you can look
| up that certain groups rarely vote and other vote almost
| always.
| bdangubic wrote:
| You can't participate in a reasonable and important
| discussions once you say that being part of the student
| protest meant supporting Hamas. It is a disqualifying
| statement from any discussion on this topic
| Schmerika wrote:
| Because polls before and after the election were crystal
| clear on this point.
|
| Over 30% of Biden 2020 voters said arming genocide was
| going to affect their vote.
|
| That's BIDEN VOTERS.
|
| 80% of Democrats wanted an arms embargo.
|
| Arming Israel meant giving up millions of votes in swing
| states, in an election that was lost by extremely slim
| margins in those states.
|
| And before you ask, it was also clear from polling that
| ending support to Israel would have cost nearly zero votes
| from her base.
|
| And the reason the Harris campaign didn't know this is
| because _they didn 't want to know_. Campaign staffers were
| instructed to mark anyone who raised Gaza as "no response".
| Attendees of the DNC conventions were literally plugging
| their ears and shielding their eyes from protests, or even
| laughing about them.
| 2001zhaozhao wrote:
| I can't shake the thought that Claude is quite possibly helping
| to conduct these attacks.
|
| Maybe it's a good thing that Anthropic will no longer be
| associated with the US government's attacks in another six
| months.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| I still cannot understand what "Claud helping to conduct
| attacks" could possibly mean. Like, they asked an LLM to use
| tool calls to look up strategic info, maps, and military asset
| inventory and then write a plan for where to point the
| missiles? How is a text generator helpful here, whose job could
| it make meaningfully easier in the chain of command?
| moxifly7 wrote:
| Target selection?
|
| "Here is 10 petabytes of signals intelligences, you can run
| queries, give me the hierarchy of my enemy, the house address
| of anyone within 3 degrees of separation of their leadership
| or weapons industry, the next house address they're likely to
| be at if trying to flee my strikes, and the time they're all
| most likely to be there. Then schedule drone strikes on the
| houses."
| idle_zealot wrote:
| I would not expect that prompt to work unless there's a
| fairly trivial query that can be crafted to give the right
| answer when run against the relevant datastore. If there is
| a query like that I would hope you have a guy on staff
| well-versed enough to know that and just run it himself.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Getting publicly kicked to the curb by the Trump admin mere
| hours before it starts another war is probably the best thing
| that could have happened to Anthropic. Not sure how well
| OpenAI's parachuting in is gonna look with hindsight. I have a
| feeling we won't have to wait that long to find out.
| k3vinw wrote:
| agreed. Although "starts another war" dismisses 50 years of
| history. Iran never stopped being at war with US and Israel
| and they clearly were never going to agree to a deal that
| left them without the nuclear capability to wipe both US and
| Israel off the map.
| k3vinw wrote:
| That's funny, I can't shake the thought that China's AI tech
| could be helping the ayatollahs' conduct their retaliation
| strikes.
| throwawa1 wrote:
| https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/399731975432728576
| thomasingalls wrote:
| let's try to keep to credible sources here eh
| big-and-small wrote:
| Joke? Or someone really dont know it's his account?
| chrisjj wrote:
| /i
| Sam6late wrote:
| They have chosen the weekend not to disturb the stock markets.
| They may pull that off when they get inside support as the
| corruption of the regime has made it unpopular with business
| class and the middle class. Trump may achieve another 'Venezuela'
| short war.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I'm very skeptical that external attacks bring about a
| resurgence of domestic Iranian protest resulting in a tidy
| regime change. I think the downward lurch of BTC tells you how
| it's going to go, because Trump's mouth is writing checks
| others are going to have to cash and there's a lot of
| contradictions involved.
|
| How is he guaranteeing immunity to members of Iran's
| Revolutionary Guard if they do nothing? Likewise, if he's
| telling the general Iranian public to simultaneously rise up
| and stay home, how does he plan to manage the hoped-for happy
| ending? In the event they succeed and topple the regime, are
| they just going to let bygones be bygones with the suddenly
| displaced IRGC while also giving Trump the keys to their
| treasury?
| fortran77 wrote:
| The headline says "US and Israel". Why are you all focusing on
| Israel?
| bpye wrote:
| Earlier headlines did just state Israel, US involvement became
| evident somewhat later.
| ardit33 wrote:
| This was doesn't benefit the US whatsoever. I am getting tired of
| our taxes going to another useless war, like the Iraq one, that
| only benefits a foreign entity, aka Israel.
|
| Iran could have been contained and Obama was right on his
| approach. We don't know the details of the strikes, but I hope it
| doesn't go into a full blown war, but this will be another Iraq
| like disaster, and american people are getting tired of doing the
| bidding of Isreal, a country that is already mirred into doing a
| genocide. This war is already unpopular in pools. Iran's regime
| is terrible to its people, but this has the potential to be
| another disaster where countless of people could die.
| padjo wrote:
| It won't go to a full blown war. They will bomb some stuff and
| declare victory. Once they sailed two carrier battle groups
| over there an attack of some sort was a foregone conclusion.
| jryan49 wrote:
| lol we all hope
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| >We don't know the details of the strikes, but I hope it
| doesn't go into a full blown war
|
| Well, if the _Chinese_ are smart, they will capitalize on this
| opportunity. They can prop up the Iranian regime with
| intelligence, weapons, and financial support the same way US &
| EU prop up Ukraine. The purpose would be to bleed US munitions
| stocks even faster than they already are, as well as increase
| attritional losses in platforms and personnel. China's
| stranglehold on rare earths and their export restrictions are
| making it more difficult for the US to restore its weapons
| stockpile. I'm sure China can crunch some numbers to identify
| the point of maximum weakness if the US is forced to sustain an
| anti-Iran air and naval campaign 30/60/90+ days. Then Xi can
| try to overlap that window of weakness with one of the two
| invasion windows against Taiwan (mostly due to weather in the
| Taiwan Strait). I don't think the PLA is dumb enough to try a
| full amphibious assault, but they could definitely initiate
| their blockade then.
| lucketone wrote:
| It would take weeks for China to shop stuff. (Unless they
| have done their homework in advance)
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| There's been rumors of Chinese kit arriving in Iran, but
| nothing concrete:
|
| https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2026/02/10/how-iran-gained-the-
| ab...
|
| If China didn't anticipate the US attacking Iran after
| Maduro was deposed and the resulting impacts on their oil
| supplies, then they are asleep at the wheel.
| cgio wrote:
| I don't believe China has any intention to support anyone by
| military means. Best case they will keep on trading and
| that's it. Iran is alone. Maybe Turkey makes a crazy move to
| support seeing it sees itself as next in line if Iran falls.
| This is the biggest present to European powers, which I think
| will be hoping that it will keep US busy for rest of Trump's
| presidency. They have the Ukraine excuse to distance
| themselves and let everyone get weaker while they arm
| themselves up. Internal political tensions in US will also
| give them leeway to more actively influence American politics
| and these will be even worse with a long war pitched against
| a scandal background. Then again, Trump may be a genius, get
| this done in a couple of months and leave everyone grasping
| for a new strategy.
| HappyPanacea wrote:
| > Iran could have been contained and Obama was right on his
| approach.
|
| So you don't care about people forced to live under IRGC rule
| and their desire to export their Islamic ideals elsewhere?
| hackpelican wrote:
| Do you really believe this "altruistic" angle?
| HappyPanacea wrote:
| Yes, I don't want to live under Islamic rule.
| colordrops wrote:
| Where do you live where Islamic rule is a worry?
| za3faran wrote:
| Note how they won't answer. They're affected by media
| FUD.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| I might be convinced that the Administration was
| concerned about people being forced to live under Islamic
| rule if it was as eager for war with Saudi Arabia as it
| is with Iran.
|
| (I wouldn't _support_ it any more in that case, but I
| would be more inclined to believe that its motivation
| might actually have anything to do with "Islamic rule".)
| za3faran wrote:
| Many people want to though, and no one is forcing you to.
| colordrops wrote:
| No. There are dozens of countries with despotic regimes,
| including Israel. And I also have no interest in zionist or
| any religious ideals exported either. If this were
| justification we would also be bombing Israel, which has
| committed far worse crimes than Iran.
| gghhzzgghhzz wrote:
| indeed. One of the only positive things Obama did
| internationally.
|
| The regime may be horrific, but the only route out was through
| supporting and encoraging change and opening up and progressive
| forces.
|
| It's a country with 90 million people, and many groups and
| external influences. Could end up like Iraq.
|
| and it's Europe that will experince the political chaos as
| result of pressure from refugees, not the US.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| If they don't put boots on the ground, it won't. They can bomb
| Iran back to the stoneage, as it has no viable air defenses.
| Revanche1367 wrote:
| I guess countless Iranians dying in the process doesn't
| matter at all? As long as the Americans are killing them from
| far away, it's all good?
| r721 wrote:
| Feb 25:
|
| >White House officials believe 'the politics are a lot better' if
| Israel strikes Iran first
|
| >As the administration mulls military action in Iran, officials
| argue it'd be best if Israel makes the first move.
|
| https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/25/white-house-politic...
| gpt5 wrote:
| Looks like the rumor was incorrect. Both jointly attacked
| (NYtimes - https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/28/world/iran-
| strikes-t...)
| vintermann wrote:
| But Israel announced it first, which they maybe hoped would
| amount to the same thing PR wise.
| gpt5 wrote:
| The rumor above specifically talks about letting Iran
| retaliate against Israel which would then lead US to
| attack.
|
| I'm not sure what's the logic behind that PR-wise, but
| regardless, it didn't happen.
| vintermann wrote:
| As I recall Iran said quite openly, in response to the US
| troop buildup, that they would see an attack by Israel as
| an attack by the US, suggesting that they could target
| e.g. carriers instead of Israel if Israel attacked them.
| SlinkyOnStairs wrote:
| > I'm not sure what's the logic behind that PR-wise
|
| Part of it is the stated idea that Israel still has
| public support. That such an exchange, even if Israel
| launches the first strike, would get more support. This
| is probably misjudging the actual public support for
| Israel, which is much lower amongst the general public
| than amongst (esp. Republican) political circles.
|
| The other part of it is that Trump has surrounded himself
| with card-carrying nazis, who have not at all been subtle
| about their desires to harm jews.
|
| > but regardless, it didn't happen.
|
| That Israel didn't launch the first strike and instead
| insisting on a joint strike (despite otherwise being
| constantly warmongering), suggests to me that it's the
| latter 'part' of the reason that had a lot of weight
| here.
| sekai wrote:
| Just now:
|
| Trump: "The lives of American heroes may be lost, and we may
| have casualties - that often happens in war."
|
| Another republican president starting a war in the middle east,
| once again sacrificing American lives.
| ambentzen wrote:
| "Some of you are going to die, but that is a sacrifice I'm
| willing to make"
| alex_young wrote:
| A war? Of course not. It's a major combat operation. Only
| congress can declare wars. We haven't had any in decades.
| They should call it the Dept. of Major Combat Operations.
| zabzonk wrote:
| The USA never even declared the Vietnam "conflict" as a
| war, or Korea, come to that, though that did at least have
| the backing of the UN.
| consp wrote:
| As soon a country agrees to enter a conflict on a side,
| which the original axes declare to be a war, it's at war.
| You can tell the media whatever you want of course.
| gpt5 wrote:
| The US didn't declare war since WW2 because such a
| declaration would give the president disruptive powers
| (such as the power to seize factories).
|
| In fact, after Vietnam war congress specifically created
| a law to restrict hostilities without congress approval
| to up to 60 days, which is what the current (and prior)
| administrations are acting on.
| riffraff wrote:
| It's not just the US, very few wars have been formally
| declared after WW2, because we all learned war is
| bad(tm), so we added more and more rules (both
| international and national) to make it harder to do it.
|
| But the reasons wars existed didn't go away, so this just
| resulted in more and more people getting killed in
| "special military operations" or similar things. See e.g.
| "Why States No Longer Declare War"[0].
|
| [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228896825_Wh
| y_State...
| adrian_b wrote:
| That article says that nowadays countries no longer
| declare war, because now there are a lot of international
| treaties that restrict what may be done during wars.
|
| Not declaring war provides a workaround, allowing the
| states to do whatever they desire, without constraints,
| while avoiding being accused that they do not observe
| their obligations assumed internationally.
|
| Seems plausible.
| gljiva wrote:
| Isn't the currently trendy term "special military
| operation"?
| Gud wrote:
| Aged quickly
| SXX wrote:
| That's reserved for those lost 200,000* of personnel
| dead.
|
| * Only verified number with real losses dead higher and
| even more crippled.
|
| https://en.zona.media/article/2026/02/24/mapofwar
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The occurrence of a war is a fact whether or not it is
| declared, and whether or not the actor waging war does so
| consistent with the legal requirements their nation's laws
| put on doing so.
| helaoban wrote:
| I like Special Military Operation better.
| somenameforme wrote:
| While I think this (and Venezuela) are arguably the biggest
| missteps this administration is making, it's hardly a
| partisan point. The political establishment loves war more
| than perhaps anything else. In 2016 alone Obama bombed half a
| dozen different countries with more than 26,000 munitions for
| an average rate of three bombs dropped every hour, every day,
| for a year. [1] Nobel Peace Prize embodied.
|
| I think the only way to get away from the warmongering is to
| go for a third party. But even they would likely be corrupted
| by the excessive influence of the military industrial
| complex. Eisenhower was not only right, but plainly
| prophetic.
|
| [1] - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-
| rankings/list-of-c...
| hvb2 wrote:
| Not defending that peace price but: Obama won the Nobel
| Peace Prize in 2009 for his efforts to prevent nuclear
| proliferation.
|
| Trump this time around didn't inherit a major us deployment
| in a conflict area. No Iraq, no Afghanistan. Also, he's
| doing military strikes by himself, no Congress involved.
|
| Syrian and Libia were both essentially civil wars with an
| oppressive regime with Syria using allegedly chemical
| weapons.
|
| Your source is a very weird site. Countries Obama bombed
| 2026??? What does that even mean. Is it just a typo in the
| main heading and the title?
| somenameforme wrote:
| Large scale deployments shifted under Obama to widescale
| bombing campaigns. The site mentions its various sources
| such as this [1] which mentions that Obama also increased
| the number of drone strikes by an order of magnitude
| relative to his predecessor. To be clear I'm not picking
| on Obama, but saying solely that this isn't a partisan
| issue. "They" all love war.
|
| And places being in a state of internal conflict,
| conflict which is itself often backed and fomented by US
| intelligence agencies and backed proxy forces, is hardly
| some reason to go bomb them. Even moreso when you look at
| results. See what Libya turned into, and what Syria is
| now turning into. It turns out that Al Qaeda in a suit is
| still Al Qaeda, to literally nobody's surprise if you're
| even vaguely familiar with our history of backing
| extremists and putting them in power, something which we
| have done repeatedly.
|
| This war, if it escalates, is not going to be good for
| Iran, the people of Iran, or likely even the US. The only
| country that might come out a winner is Israel, but even
| that might not end up being the case, as Iran's
| retaliation will likely focus on them. To say nothing of
| longer term consequences.
|
| [1] -
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-
| preside...
| JasonADrury wrote:
| > Large scale deployments shifted under Obama to
| widescale bombing campaigns
|
| This isn't true. Small-scale targeted raids, not B52s
| recreating Dresden.
| Qem wrote:
| > And places being in a state of internal conflict,
| conflict which is itself often backed and fomented by US
| intelligence agencies and backed proxy forces
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
| hvb2 wrote:
| Drone strikes picked up, obviously as that technology
| became more and more mature. They're cheaper to operate
| and don't put a pilot in harms way. So that's kinda
| expected?
|
| Agreed with most of the rest you said though
| thunky wrote:
| > So that's kinda expected?
|
| Sure, if the choice is between drone bombings and
| conventional bombings.
|
| But no, not expected if the choice is between bombing and
| not bombing.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| Not only that but it should be noted what the stated aim
| is of these strikes and earlier Trump strikes on Iran:
| take out the nuclear threat.
|
| That nuclear threat was contained under a plan backed by
| US, EU, Russia, China and Iran, in which Iran would not
| pursue nuclear expansion and let a team of international
| experts in to verify this on a continuous basis, in
| exchange for some sanction relief. A solution Trump threw
| in the trash, reinstating the sanctions, pressuring Iran
| to pursue nuclear again as one of its few levers of power
| it can pull on.
|
| In other words he created the necessity for violence by
| throwing away a unique solution that the entire world got
| behind including US allies & enemies, throwing away
| goodwill and trust in future deals (why would Iran
| negotiate now if it's clear how Trump views deals, as
| things to be broken even irrationally?)
|
| Those who claim this is an anti-war president have no
| clue, even in the context of a 'just war' argument it
| simply falls flat.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| Is it just another distraction from the Trump/Epstein
| files?
|
| It does seem that military action is correlated with
| increased coverage in the media of the Trump/Epstein
| files.
| TowerTall wrote:
| yes, that is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less IMHO
| Ray20 wrote:
| Should we hold the media accountable for coverage of the
| Trump/Epstein files because of this?
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| I'd rather we held Trump accountable for his many crimes.
|
| I find it astounding that the U.S. population aren't
| storming Washington and demanding his removal. Other
| countries are removing people from positions who were
| involved with Epstein due to the massive corruption and
| yet the USA seems fine with allowing Trump to continue
| destroying everything he touches.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| Hard to say. Netanyahu has been calling for Iranian
| regime change since the 90s, and Trump is his most
| successful lobbying effort yet. US wants regime change,
| they just never saw a possibility. So the objective isn't
| new or driven by Epstein, perhaps the timing is though.
|
| Even now most experts agree the chance of success is
| extremely small, every time this was tried you got shit
| returns (think Libya, still a failed state after Ghadaffi
| fell, and Iraq is reasonably stable now but we're 2
| decades in and +1m dead Iraqis).
|
| So it's certainly a useful distraction for Trump. It's
| also certainly true Trump would want to pursue this
| objective (despite it being a stupid move to reach it)
| regardless of the Epstein files.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Regarding intervention in Venezuela, is that seen as a
| mistep in the US? In the rest of America it is considered
| as a win, except of course by Cuba (Cubans are the most,
| almost the only, affected)
|
| Regarding politicians: Gustavo Petro was the most vocal
| protester; now that Trump told him in the White house to
| shut up, he is wagging his tail happily.
| roenxi wrote:
| The operation in Venezuela could be characterised as an
| enormous success in the sense that it didn't seem to do
| anything and therefore was a big improvement on most
| times the US activates its military. But it was still a
| misstep in the sense that it keeps US aggression top of
| mind without achieving very much.
| etc-hosts wrote:
| It did help the US government's goals of starving Cuba.
| nkrisc wrote:
| It successfully didn't backfire on the US.
| dgoldstein0 wrote:
| My take, as an American: the outcome seems to be good -
| Maduro is out of power, his number 2 seems much more
| willing to play ball and from what I've read Venezuela's
| economy is now improving as money flowing in has turned
| around their previously out of control inflation. It
| managed to not flare into a full scale war, no Americans
| died - so I think approval is middle to high on it.
|
| That said the justification for it made no sense to me
| and many others. Trump accused Maduro of narcoterrorism -
| profiting from the drug trade and violence. Where's the
| evidence? And the whole bit about the oil ... Usually
| that's the critique of US actions, not the reason we
| give; we should be moving full speed towards adopting
| renewables so an oil grab really doesn't make sense.
| Though Trump's energy policy has always been entirely
| backwards.
|
| And we should probably also worry about the example we've
| set - that we'll just intervene when it suits us with a
| cooked up justification certainly incentivizes dangerous
| behavior - how many countries are now thinking about the
| deterrents they could acquire? But most Americans don't
| think about unintended consequences of laws or government
| actions.
|
| One last thought re oil - the smart move would probably
| be to invest in Venezuelan oil not for sale in the US but
| for export to India and maybe Europe - try to use it as a
| replacement for Russian oil. That would in turn hurt
| Russia's economy and thereby reduce their efforts to wage
| war in Ukraine. But if that's the plan, Trump has never
| said that. And it also doesn't really fit his worldview
| that the Ukraine war should be Europe's problem and not
| the US's problem. But maybe it'll end up happening
| anyway, if Venezuela's oil production picks up and the US
| doesn't actually have the demand for it.
| jjtwixman wrote:
| Americans voted for no new wars, and especially no new wars
| in the sandbox, and they got a new war in the sandbox.
|
| Americans really have to be among the most gullible people on
| the planet.
|
| Not to mention that Trump is a paedophile, the open
| corruption, attempted coup etc... it's like that Hemingway
| quote. The decline of the USA has been gradual, and then very
| sudden.
| chrisjj wrote:
| You're implying those who voted for Trump believed his
| pitch.
| jjtwixman wrote:
| I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, that
| they are effectively merely retarded rather than actually
| evil.
| cap11235 wrote:
| Why not both?
| ohjimny2 wrote:
| Isn't that famously a Scott Fitzgerald quote?
| hermitcrab wrote:
| I thought he wasn't allowed to start a war without a vote in
| congress?
| chrisjj wrote:
| Worse. He has to _win_ a vote in Congress. How bothersome!
| bregma wrote:
| (a) It's not a war, it's just a military operation.
|
| (2) It's only the constitution that requires an act of
| congress, and that document is not considered applicable by
| the current king.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| "Some of you may die, but that is a risk I am willing to
| take."
| amunozo wrote:
| Once again mass killing civilians and setting a country of
| 100 million inhabitants into chaos.
|
| But yes, poor American soldiers.
| beloch wrote:
| This may be the bloodiest "Wag the Dog" in modern history.
| They may create an Ig Nobel peace prize _specifically_ for
| this.
| lonelyasacloud wrote:
| > Trump: "The lives of American heroes may be lost, and we
| may have casualties - that often happens in war."
|
| Coming from President Bone Spurs ...
| ekianjo wrote:
| You forgot the Obama wars for some reason?
| ActorNightly wrote:
| There were no Obama wars.
| heresie-dabord wrote:
| Trump is calling them heroes now. But we know what he really
| thinks: "suckers and losers".
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/john-kelly-
| con...
| shusaku wrote:
| I'm honestly perplexed. I had anticipated a scenario like "the
| US feared Iran was unstable and attacked to protect nuclear
| material". It seems this would give them reasonable cover. I
| don't see how Israel going along helps
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Bibi needs Israel to keep fabricating wars. He will go to
| trial for previous charges if Israel runs out of wars.
| kakacik wrote:
| How can you attack israeli pm on US site? This is not what
| we paid/threatened/extorted/killed for!
| replooda wrote:
| > Israel going along
|
| Honinbo-sensei, you seem to have failed to recognize puppy-go
| for what it is and also to identify the player.
| chrisjj wrote:
| s/politics/optics/
| anonnon wrote:
| Can any Iran simps explain why the regime couldn't just agree to
| zero enrichment and cease its weekly ritual of organized mobs
| chanting:
|
| > DEATH TO AMERICA
|
| in the streets like blood-thirsty lunatics, something for which
| there was no equivalent in the US even after 9/11 (mobs chanting
| "Death to Muslims/Islam"), let alone doing so with governmental
| encouragement as happens in Iran?
|
| Do they not realize how many Americans aren't pro-Israel and
| aren't invested enough in the Middle East and its politics, proxy
| wars, and human rights abuses to want the US to support Israel in
| military action against Iran, _except for their nuclear
| ambitions_ , and _regularly professed eternal hatred for our
| country_?
| beeflet wrote:
| I think iran wants nuclear weapons to ensure its survival
| against israel
| anonnon wrote:
| So we're supposed to
|
| >justtrustmebro
|
| That they'll never, in some capacity, attempt use them
| against the country they weekly collectively chant death to?
|
| EDIT: thanks, dang, for the
|
| > posting too fast
|
| cooldown, for all of my four posts.
|
| > perhaps we could negotiate a peace deal in which israel and
| iran both agree to give up nuclear weapons and allow for IAEA
| inspections
|
| I completely agree with you. Isreal has better relations with
| its neighbors than its ever had, has destroyed Iran's
| proxies, and given its obvious conventional military
| supremacy and lack of regional nuclear-armed foes and US-
| backing, its nuclear stockpile is just a destabilizing force
| in the region, and them voluntarily disbanding it would earn
| them a great deal of goodwill and a moral highground.
| beeflet wrote:
| The iranians would say the same thing about the USA/israel.
| The israelis share that dogmatism with them.
|
| perhaps we could negotiate a peace deal in which israel and
| iran both agree to give up nuclear weapons and allow for
| IAEA inspections
| citrin_ru wrote:
| The current Iranian regime has destruction of Israel as one
| of their main goals. Not the other way around. I'm sure if
| Iran will have less threatening leadership Isreal will not
| bother them.
| bigyabai wrote:
| We don't have many details regarding the negotiations, but
| early reports suggest that Iran agreed to the "no high-
| enrichment" line. It was the proxy support and MRBM standoff
| weaponry that caused the talks to collapse (allegedly).
|
| https://www.thejournal.ie/iran-agrees-in-breakthrough-talks-...
| citrin_ru wrote:
| No one dares to attack North Korea because they have nukes.
| Ayatollahs surely want the same but didn't have enough
| time/resources.
|
| Current stance on negotiations is a miscalculation IMHO, they
| likely wanted for negotiations to drag on for a long time.
| anonnon wrote:
| Last I checked, no one dared to attack them _before_ they had
| nukes because of China 's promise (made good in 1950) to use
| their military to defend the regime in Pyongyang, and the
| massive array of conventional artillery pointing at Seoul
| just across the DMZ, where 25% of South Korea's population
| resides. Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47192139
| nomilk wrote:
| Are there any accurate sources on how many Iranian citizens the
| Iran regime has killed in the past couple of months? (some
| sources suggest tens of thousands, but I wonder if it could be a
| 'WMDs' situation [lie to get support for a war]).
|
| Trump said in the State of the Union [0]:
|
| > in just over the past couple of months with the protests
| they've killed at least 32000 protestors
|
| And just moments ago Trump says 'tens of thousands' [1]
|
| Is this confirmed or conjecture?
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l-iErpskb8&t=1h21m20s
|
| [1] https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/2027651077865157033
| bawolff wrote:
| I think its incredibly difficult to get confirmed numbers in a
| situation like that.
|
| I do think its on the higher end though as i dont think they
| would have bothered with a costly extended internet blackout if
| the number was small.
| colordrops wrote:
| Why does it matter? Is it justification to attack them?
| nomilk wrote:
| The 'tens of thousands' figure is one primary justification.
| Iran (eventually) getting a nuke is another.
| bawolff wrote:
| Its probably not the reason they are attacking (except in as
| much that it makes the iranian regime vulnerable). However i
| would say that yes, humanitarian intervention is one of the
| only non self-defense justifications for war that anyone has
| ever accepted in the post-ww2 era. (Edit: to clarify, im
| saying its the type of thing people build justifications for
| war around. Whether its a valid justification on this
| specific case is probably highly debatable. I think a
| reasonable argument could be made)
| rando1234 wrote:
| So I suppose you'll be attacking Saudi Arabia after this if
| you're so worried about humanitarian conditions?
| RiverStone wrote:
| You have to pick your battles and be pragmatic. Changing
| the Iranian regime would have a much broader impact than
| changing the Saudi Arabian one.
| rando1234 wrote:
| Bombs for peace.
| sekai wrote:
| > However i would say that yes, humanitarian intervention
| is one of the only non self-defense justifications for war
| that anyone has ever accepted in the post-ww2 era
|
| So when is the US intervening in Ukraine then? Russia is
| literally doing human safari with drones hunting down
| civilians in Kherson.
| bawolff wrote:
| > So when is the US intervening in Ukraine then?
|
| Did you miss the absolute massive amounts of aid US has
| given ukraine?
|
| Regardless, there is a difference between how war is
| justified and why wars actually take place.
| sekai wrote:
| > Did you miss the absolute massive amounts of aid US has
| given ukraine?
|
| I missed US bombing Moscow, like they are bombing Tehran
| at this moment.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| But this will undoubtedly increase the general level of
| adversarial feelings and justifications of violence
| worldwide for many decades to come. The seeds of the next
| ISIS were planted today
| close04 wrote:
| Can the US or Israel morally claim "humanitarian"
| intervention given what's happening in parallel in Gaza? If
| Iran bombed Tel Aviv would you call it a humanitarian
| intervention? Is this a creative use of the term? When you
| make a "humanitarian" intervention to save some humans,
| while decimating others it sounds like you think the
| "others" are not/sub-humans.
| bawolff wrote:
| Tu quoque
| usrnm wrote:
| I don't get that argument at all. Americans felt that they were
| missing out on all the fun, so they decided to kill even more
| Iranians? Does anyone really believe that bombing cities saves
| lives?
| bawolff wrote:
| Whether it will in this case i don't know.
|
| But yes, i do think sometimes war can be a net positive for
| civilians over the alternative in the long term. Not often,
| but sometimes.
| dygd wrote:
| > i do think sometimes war can be a net positive for
| civilians
|
| Spoken from the comfort of your cozy apartment, with the AC
| on, light music in the background and a drink in your hand.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| Can't make me an omelette without breaking your eggs.
| RiverStone wrote:
| They're not nuking Tehran, they're dropping targeted bombs on
| government/military sites.
|
| Get in touch with your local Iranian community. You'd be
| surprised how much they're cheering the bombing on.
|
| You might be surprised that people inside Tehran are shouting
| "get the mullahs out" and cheering us on.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Us and Britain is largely the reason they're in power in
| the first place.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| This is exactly what was claimed in Iraq, and while I'm
| sure you can find some few idiots or optimists, it is
| completely false at the relevant level. There is no such
| thing, and has never been such a thing, as a country
| welcoming an invasion by another country, at least not in
| the last few hundred years since nation states developed,
| and since explosives became the major means of war.
|
| This is especially false in Iran in relation to USA
| intervention, since both the democrats and the
| fundamentalists still remember how the USA & UK deposed
| their last democratic leaders and (re) installed the brutal
| dictatorship of the Shah, who both parts of Iranian society
| hate and remeber being oppressed by today.
| orwin wrote:
| The diaspora and the clans are cheering for sure, as well
| as a lot of people who lost their operations when the
| Taliban took Afghanistan back.
|
| But the clans are way, way weaker than they were when they
| did their coup against Mosaddegh, so it will be extremely
| expensive for the US to keep control this time.
| epsters wrote:
| Why are we even talking about this? As if this is being done
| for the 'protestors'? Netanyahu didn't visit the White House _6
| times_ in the last year to advocate for the welfare of the
| Iranian people. The "negotiations" over the last several weeks
| weren't over protestors - it was over the Nuclear program,
| ballistic program and proxy forces. It wasn't even about US
| interests. Iran offered mining, oil and other valuable rights.
| Trump wasn't buying. This is about Israel's national security
| interests and hegemonic ambitions. Protestors are just pawns in
| service of that.
|
| If this turns into a full-scale war or a civil war breaks out,
| we are looking at 1 million Iranian deaths conservatively
| speaking. Just look at happened at every single foreign
| intervention in the region - Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan,
| Somalia. How does a million dead Iranians help them? How does
| it help the Americans, and the world if oil infrastructures or
| shipping lanes are targeted ? How does it help the region or
| Europe when millions of refugees flood out, and armouries are
| broken open and weapons and insurgents flood the region (like
| it did with Iraq and Libya)? It helps Israel greatly though,
| since they take out their arch nemesis, their conventional
| military and the nuclear program. And they think can shield
| themselves from the chaos they create around them.
| tdeck wrote:
| Apparently you don't even have to give Americans the neocon
| foreign policy spin anymore, we generate it ourselves.
|
| To wit, after Maduro was kidnapped and the exact same regime
| kept in place (minus selling oil to Cuba), and Trump openly
| said it was to control the oil, most of the reactions were
| pretending we live in a universe where the US does these
| things to spread democracy.
| swingboy wrote:
| > This is about Israel's national security interests and
| hegemonic ambitions.
|
| This sums it all up succinctly. Emphasis on the "hegemonic
| ambitions" part.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| Regardless of how it ends, and it can go both ways, we're
| witnessing history here. This feels like a much bigger
| development than Russia-Ukraine. Iran is a major partner for
| Russia and China, mostly for military technology and oil. Hope
| it's not a start of WW3.
| waihtis wrote:
| Putin said it himself, there are over 2 million russians in
| Israel - they will not participate
| quotz wrote:
| thats definitely not the reason they wont participate. Its
| just a public excuse
| null_deref wrote:
| Russian Speakers* a lot of them are from previous Soviet
| republics like Georgia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and
| Ukraine
| pseingatl wrote:
| In Georgia, they speak Georgian. Azerbaijani is a Turkic
| language.
| null_deref wrote:
| I don't dispute that fact, but the Jews that have
| immigrated from there have grew up in the Soviet Union
| and in the Soviet education system, and therefore speak
| Russian
|
| Additional context: the comment above me stated 2m people
| have emigrated from Russia to Israel it's more correct to
| say that they have emigrated from the Soviet Union
| kdheiwns wrote:
| I have to wonder how many are in governmental roles and
| realized they can steer the US into conflicts and ruining
| itself without any of those involved identifying as Russian.
| It's the cleanest backdoor for espionage that there ever was.
| waihtis wrote:
| "russia controlling the us" is such a 2015 narrative, you
| ought to update your positioning..
| bawolff wrote:
| Otoh, what russia desperately needs in the short term is oil
| prices to go up, so there is probably a major silver lining for
| them.
| sekai wrote:
| > Otoh, what russia desperately needs in the short term is
| oil prices to go up, so there is probably a major silver
| lining for them.
|
| And they will again appear weak and incapable, unable to help
| their allies
| null_deref wrote:
| Isn't this a fact set in stone by now? Armenia, Syria, Iran
| in the previous months
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > And they will again appear weak and incapable, unable to
| help their allies
|
| Iran and Russia have various partnership agreements, but
| are not allies. And Russia has already demonstrated that it
| doesn't support what are, on paper, close allies in the
| CSTO, so not defending a non-ally strategic partner really
| doesn't move the needle on their credibility.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Iran's oil is sanctioned hence not on public market. Does it
| really have much influence?
| citrin_ru wrote:
| China buys Iranian oil, if they'll start to but oil from
| non-sanctioned countries it will push prices up. But the
| biggest reason for prices to go up is the risk that Iran
| will attack tankers in the strait of Hormuz or oil
| infrastructure on Arabian peninsula.
| antonkochubey wrote:
| Yes, because if it stops flowing, demand on the public
| market will increase, and prices will rise.
| bawolff wrote:
| It does, but the primary concern is iran stopping oil
| transit by other countries in the strait of hormuz, not
| their own oil.
|
| Which they did just start to do.
| seydor wrote:
| Could be more of an intimidation tactic. The United States of
| Israel wouldnt go to a land war in Iran, that's unwinnable
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| This is about Iran, not Iraq.
| dash2 wrote:
| Depends how you count "big". Russia-Ukraine has had about 1
| million deaths, and has completely changed how Europe thinks
| about security- it's hardly a sideshow. Then again, not much
| territory has changed hands and there has been no regime change
| yet.
| tromp wrote:
| > not much territory has changed hands
|
| Russia occupies about 20% of Ukraine, an area three times
| larger than the country I live in (the Netherlands).
| antonkochubey wrote:
| Majority of that is since 2014, gains since 2022 are way
| lower
| adamors wrote:
| Not true, prior to 2022 February Russia controlled small
| parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, now they control
| them almost entirely, as well as good chunks of
| Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts.
|
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/24/mapping-russian-
| att...
|
| https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-
| ukraine/russian...
| wiseowise wrote:
| All were captured during their thrift store blitzkrieg.
| Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Mariupol were captured because
| pro Russian rats sabotaged mine defenses in Kherson
| oblast.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| One million casualties is injured, missing, and dead... not
| just the dead.
| eps wrote:
| > 1 million deaths
|
| Casulties, not deaths.
| dmos62 wrote:
| The casualty-to-death ratio in Ukraine is surprising for
| modern times, especially on the Russian side. Counting
| civilians, Ukrainians, Russians, I can see the death count
| being close to 1M. Partisan sources already put Russian
| combat losses at around 1.2M personnel. Ukrainian losses
| might be more than half what Russian losses are. The 1M
| deaths estimate doesn't seem outlandish.
| xdennis wrote:
| > Russia-Ukraine has had about 1 million deaths
|
| I wish... But estimates say between 230,000 and 468,500 dead
| orcs.
| pjc50 wrote:
| There's no land campaign. It's an isolated series of strikes
| for PR reasons and wishful thinking about Iran collapse.
| bambax wrote:
| What happens when Iran responds by firing missiles on Israel
| or on a US ship and inflicts major casualties on either
| targets, though?
| pseingatl wrote:
| Exactly. See, sinking of the General Belgrano.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Even the US can't move an Iran sized invasion force
| overnight. It was a couple of years from 9/11 until the
| invasion of Iraq.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Russia and Ukraine are now at war for the fifth year running,
| you're just used to the fact that there is ongoing war in
| Europe.
| dgxyz wrote:
| I don't think it's bigger than Russia-Ukraine - it's part of
| it. This is all about destabilising Iran's incumbent
| government, which is probably a good thing at the moment. It'll
| damage supply lines to Russia's Ukraine offensive, give the
| chance for Iranian citizens to rise up against Khamenei and the
| IRGC and break the command chain for their foreign proxy
| operations. Part of Dugan's work on geopolitics, which they
| seem to be following to the word (c'mon guys seriously?)
| suggests that Moscow and Tehran should be allied which they are
| behind the scenes.
|
| As for the nuclear threat, literally Iran said it was going to
| destroy Israel to the point it had a massive countdown clock in
| Tehran until Israel blew it up, so meh. If I was on the
| receiving end of that threat I'd make it a policy to respond to
| it, escalation or not. I make no claims of the accuracy of the
| threats past IAEA being unable to verify they aren't enriching
| stuff.
|
| Doubt it'll escalate into WW3. The only other powers involved
| are Russia, who are totally hands tied with Ukraine if they
| like it or not and China is only interested keeping what's left
| in its sphere of influence later through their outreach
| initiatives. I suspect most Middle Eastern countries will be
| quite happy about this conflict as they have persistent
| problems with Iran as well from the Houthis, Hezbollah and tens
| of other factions. They won't want to say anything though in
| case their own citizens turn on them.
|
| The cringeworthy thing is how the US gov are communicating this
| and that does the operation a lot of damage. It's really quite
| terrible. Sounds like it was written by a bunch of 9 year olds
| after too many sugary drinks. Urgh.
| voidfunc wrote:
| > The cringeworthy thing is how the US gov are communicating
| this and that does the operation a lot of damage. It's really
| quite terrible. Sounds like it was written by a bunch of 9
| year olds after too many sugary drinks. Urgh.
|
| Thats because its not written for you and I. Its written for
| people who struggle to communicate at an adult level, which
| is a shockingly large portion of the US.
| dgxyz wrote:
| I don't think that's the case. I think it's some of those
| people got elected.
| voidfunc wrote:
| They got elected because they communicated effectively
| with people in a way those people understood.
|
| Trump speaks like a 4th grader and it is extremely
| effective.
| dabinat wrote:
| I think "Make America Great Again" was effective because
| it means whatever the person hearing it wants it to mean,
| and there's no obvious metric by which to measure its
| success.
|
| The policies on the left tend to have a lot more nuance,
| which is much harder to fit on a hat.
| pseingatl wrote:
| "for you and me," not "for you and I." Would you write,
| "for I"?????
| concinds wrote:
| No it's not. This is an air strike campaign, no boots on the
| ground. It'll end in two weeks. There is no chance China or
| Russia get involved, like last time, so "WW3" is completely
| non-credible.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > ...no boots on the ground. It'll end in two weeks
|
| Why do we never learn from history?
| HauntingPin wrote:
| Yes ... why do we never learn from history? What's with the
| selective memory?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_war
|
| The previous campaign lasted a whole 13 days and WW3 didn't
| start. I'm not sure why anybody thinks it'll be different
| now or why Russia or China would bother going to war for
| Iran. That makes zero sense.
| sekai wrote:
| > The previous campaign lasted a whole 13 days and WW3
| didn't start. I'm not sure why anybody thinks it'll be
| different now or why Russia or China would bother going
| to war for Iran. That makes zero sense.
|
| We did not move 1/3 of operational USAF capacity and 33%
| of our deployable Navy for limited strikes.
| HauntingPin wrote:
| Okay, and where's the army? I'm not sure what you're
| expecting without boots to put on the ground. Are the
| pilots gonna be ejecting to go hunt Khamenei? This
| argument is meaningless. Again, none of this can lead to
| WW3 and none of this can turn into a protracted war as in
| Ukraine-Russia.
|
| You can stop when you have no idea what you're talking
| about, you know.
| shakna wrote:
| What do the three points of the navy trident represent?
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| You seem like a Trump voter who voted for no more wars
| doing damage control
|
| Boots on the ground can happen at any time if Iran
| manages to either hit one of the thousands of US assets
| in the region or worse they resort to terrorism with a
| theatrical attack like 9/11 which ended up costing so
| many lives , money and freedoms ranging from TSA
| literally up your ass to the destruction of privacy
| online and offline.....and of course as we all know boots
| on the ground
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| The big difference with previous campaign is that now,
| the Iranian regime is facing existential threat. While
| the previous war was more a of a show for respective
| domestic publics, this one feels like there is no coming
| back.
|
| Of course Russia or China won't go to war for Iran -
| nobody is saying that. They can get involved though, just
| as Europe is involved in Ukraine war.
| viking123 wrote:
| They will provide intel and weapons like NATO in Ukraine.
| concinds wrote:
| There are no ground ops and there is no possibility of any
| significant ground ops given current deployments.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| And if Iran gets incredibly lucky and sinks an aircraft
| carrier or lands a sufficiently lucky hit on a military
| base?
|
| Will there still be no possibility of ground deployments?
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| While it's possible, it's unlikely. Iranian regime is in a
| corner - they have no choice anymore but to escalate, and
| escalate quickly.
| suddenlybananas wrote:
| There might be boots on the ground eventually given Trump's
| speech.
|
| >The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we
| may have casualties. That often happens in war, but we're
| doing this not for now. We're doing this for the future, and
| it is a noble mission
|
| Very foreboding.
| concinds wrote:
| It's a sinister statement, but despite everything the U.S.
| has moved to the region, they didn't move the stuff they
| would need to move for ground operations.
| RiverStone wrote:
| Venezuela didn't take many boots. Maybe we can decapitate
| the Iranian regime in the same way.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I feel like maybe you have no idea how that Maduro
| takedown happened. That is not possible here.
| shusaku wrote:
| Iran is hitting back at US bases so it could be related to
| those risks, rather than a full invasion.
|
| (Crazy idea, maybe the people shouldn't be left in the dark
| about their government's war plans by having a deliberate
| legislative body debate and vote on it)
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Chinese state media is already reporting it's "unlikely to be
| contained" https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202602/28/WS69a2a6
| 69a310d686...
| concinds wrote:
| A regional war isn't a world war
| pseingatl wrote:
| Bombing never wins wars, with one exception.
|
| bombing of: -N.Vietnam -Germany -Serbia -Sudan -Tunisia
| -England
|
| Exception:
|
| -Japan
|
| That is not to say bombing doesn't have its uses in war. The
| bombing of the oilfields of Ploesti in Romania severely
| damaged the German war machine. But it took Russian boots on
| the ground in Berlin to effect a German surrender.
| bojan wrote:
| Being Serbian, the bombing campaign of 1999. was
| successful. It lead to the (temporary, 12-years long)
| regime change, and to the de-facto independence of Kosovo.
| It ended the war.
| throwaway3060 wrote:
| As big as this is, the Russia-Ukraine war pretty much marked
| the end of the post-WW2 era and redefined global relations
| between the powers. In that sense, this is yet another major
| shift within this new era. But also, the series of events that
| led to this point does connect to the Russia-Ukraine war, and
| maybe doesn't happen without it.
| dmos62 wrote:
| > This feels like a much bigger development than Russia-
| Ukraine.
|
| Russia-Ukraine war is 1M+ combat casualties deep and is nowhere
| near finished. You are out of touch.
| bawolff wrote:
| But russia-ukraine is also a much more contained war between
| 2 parties that will likely end in a stalemate.
|
| The middle east is a much more tangled web of alliances and
| hatreds, i think the iranian regime falling would have much
| more harder to predict second order geopolitical effects.
| torlok wrote:
| I hope you're joking. This is such "Ukrainians are just
| Russians by a different name" logic. China, Belarus, and
| North Korea are deep in this conflict, so are all the
| European countries. There's no stalemate end to this war,
| only a temporary cease fire or the collapse of Russia.
| bojan wrote:
| > But russia-ukraine is also a much more contained war
| between 2 parties that will likely end in a stalemate.
|
| The whole of Europe is affected, it might seem contained
| only if you live very far away. Every European country is
| affected in one way or another.
|
| It's not a stalemate if Ukraine ends up losing 30% of its
| territory. That's Russian victory.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Ukraine will never de jure give up those territories and
| majority of nations will never recognize those as part of
| Russia. And it's 20%, not 30%. Pre full scale war it was
| 7%, now it is 19%, so during the five years they've
| captured 12% of Ukraine's territory.
|
| Russian goals were:
|
| - Quick decapitation - fail
|
| - Change of government - fail
|
| - Prove that majority of Ukrainians are phone Russians
| and the moment greater Russia comes everyone will see
| that Ukraine is not a real state - fail
|
| - Make second Belarus out of Ukraine - fail
|
| - Stop NATO enlargement, Finland and Sweden joined NATO
| essentially doubling border with NATO - fail
|
| - Dissuade Ukraine from joining EU and make it pro
| Russian first - fail
|
| - Prove that Russia is a great military power on par with
| US that can topple regimes at will - fail
|
| - Make Russia strategically independent- fail, Russia is
| now completely dependent on China
|
| - Destabilize EU - fail, Europe is united like never
| under US/Russia/China threat
|
| This war will enter history as one of the worst blunders.
| Havoc wrote:
| I doubt either of them is keen to enter the fray here. Russia
| is making shaheeds at home now anyway
| mantas wrote:
| More like this is a small piece of the puzzle in Russian-
| Ukraine war. Iran plays quite a big role in supplying Russians.
| If Iran is taken out, power balance in that war may change too.
| bambax wrote:
| WW3 started with the invasion of Ukraine.
| kibae wrote:
| There seems to be an uptick around 1am on Polymarket.
|
| https://polymarket.com/event/us-strikes-iran-by
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Due to distance planes need to take off many hours before the
| bombs drop.
|
| You can get an edge here by moving your ass somewhere where you
| can see the planes take off, maybe a team with people at
| multiple locations - boats near the aircraft carrier, near
| military bases in Israel, ...
| mijoharas wrote:
| Sure, it could be that. My money is on something a bit
| simpler.
| xdennis wrote:
| I tried to access that URL but it's banned in my country
| (Romania) for being an "exploitative gambling website". It's
| the first time I've felt that my country has a sensible
| internet policy.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Yes many markets began to react at 1:14AM EST.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| There is a huge flame war in the comments as people who had
| money on 27th Feb are claiming the attack started on that date
|
| I think they don't have an argument because technically the
| missile can be de-activated up until the last seconds before it
| reaches its intended target
|
| Still it feels surreal to argue about these things , bomb
| dropping on humans and other humans attacking each other for
| the privilege to have their bet honored on when said bombs
| dropped on the other side of the world
|
| I guess people in intelligence communities had these sort of
| bets going on ever since WW2 and Vietnam , but still it's
| uncanny to see it widespread to potentially the whole
| population of the internet
| Devasta wrote:
| Iran is a lesson to all: as soon as Israel or the US take a
| disliking to you you have to rush for nuclear weapons.
|
| Iran has been the grown up in the room for well over a decade at
| this stage and it didn't matter one bit. You cannot appease
| Israel or the US because that don't want to be appeased, they
| want to bomb Iran into a lawless wasteland. They could have
| switched to a secular liberal democracy and it'd make no
| difference.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Iran makes the drones that russia uses to attack Ukraine every
| day. Iran makes the rockets Houthis use to attack ships. Iran
| provides rockets andgunding to Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is a
| terrorist state.
| heyheyhouhou wrote:
| I guess it depends from which angle you see this. Things are
| not black & white.
|
| A big chunk of the world sees the US as the biggest terrorist
| state in the world, followed up by Israel...
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Iran and russia are pretty black. Without any white
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Usa makes the bombs that israel uses to attack gaza every
| day.
| rando1234 wrote:
| Don't know why you are being down voted. I mean Iran had a
| democracy that was toppled by the CIA when they tried to
| nationalise their resources in favour of a puppet dictator. If
| the US cared so much about human rights why not go invade Saudi
| Arabia.
| RiverStone wrote:
| Go look at photos of the Iranian Revolution. You'll see
| pictures of millions of Iranians involved.
|
| It's infantilizing to act like Iranians weren't capable of
| their own decisions, or their own mistakes in this case.
|
| This talking point that "the CIA did it" has never been
| accurate.
| rando1234 wrote:
| My point is that any Americans claiming moral legitimacy
| for these actions due to human rights considerations should
| give us all a break.
|
| And are you really claiming the CIA was not involved in
| instigating a coup to bring in the Shah?
| orwin wrote:
| I know someone whose clan was involved (still were when I
| last talked to him, before the US left Afghanistan). Of
| course the CIA/MI6 used local support, but they did have an
| impact on when, who and how. And on the power structure
| from 53 onwards.
| carlosbaraza wrote:
| What are that pizza place google statistics?
| seydor wrote:
| Did anybody need those? The deployment of half the US army near
| israel was not enough evidence?
| carabiner wrote:
| Those spiked like 50x in the past 4 months. Doesn't seem to
| mean anything.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| The only time it didn't spike was for the Venezuela Maduro
| operation.
|
| At this point, the pizza index is another vector of
| (dis)information managed by the Pentagon.
| inkysigma wrote:
| Once that side channel was found, it was kind of inevitable
| it would be plugged. Even under a normal administration,
| that's an opsec leak.
| Schmerika wrote:
| Seriously. They can put a Burger King anywhere on the
| planet in 24 hours, but can't do their own pizza at the
| Pentagon?
| carabiner wrote:
| Remember when we bombed Iran at Fordow? It happened less than a
| year ago. Iran sent some perfunctory retaliation, and everyone
| forgot the whole affair. Same with this. Nothing ever happens.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| idk about that, telling people to get ready for body bags does
| not sound like the hands-off fireworks show of previous
| episodes.
| Havoc wrote:
| Given the amount of planes this isn't going to be a single
| precision strike
| shihab wrote:
| Another mid east war entirely on Israel's behalf, another war
| Americans will pay tax for, die for- just so Israel can keep
| grabbing few parcels of lands from Palestine.
| bettercallsalad wrote:
| What an utter betrayal of no war by DJT. This is the final straw.
| Era of Trump is dead, we are back to neoconservative era. I guess
| Adelsons are too hard to say no to.
| shihab wrote:
| Citizens United is an existential threat for USA. You cannot
| have Israeli-American dual citizens pouring $200 million
| dollars in elections. and that's just her alone. This is simply
| not sustainable.
| idop wrote:
| Or one South African-Canadian-American triple citizen pouring
| $300 million dollars in elections. I am shocked that campaign
| donations are legal.
| tdeck wrote:
| I mean, some of the stuff actually wasn't legal. But
| accountability for wealthy elites is limited to a strongly
| worded letter
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c748l0zv4x8o
|
| Just look at the fallout from the Epstein files where at
| best we can hope people will be embarrassed into resigning
| their current position.
| danaris wrote:
| Can we not with the blatant antisemitic dogwhistles...?
| shihab wrote:
| Exactly what part of my statement was dog whistling? Can
| you stop throwing around this serious accusation of
| antisemitism without any attempt to substantiate your
| claim?
| danaris wrote:
| "Israeli-American dual citizens"
|
| Making a big deal out of Israelis--especially wealthy
| ones--having dual citizenship is a _classic_ antisemitic
| tactic, used to sow the idea that they aren 't "real
| Americans" or their primary loyalty is to another
| country.
|
| Also: yes, Citizens United is a big problem. But phrasing
| your comment as if the _primary_ problem with it is
| "Israeli-American dual citizens" pouring millions of
| dollars into politics is perpetuating the antisemitic
| ideas that a) all or most Jews are wealthy, and b) Jews
| are controlling our country/the world.
|
| Whether or not you meant it as antisemitic, it played
| directly and _very_ clearly into multiple antisemitic
| tropes that are frequently used to try to smear and harm
| Jewish people.
| shihab wrote:
| I brought up Israeli-American donors because that's what
| is relevant in the _context of the story we're
| discussing._ We are talking about a war many right wing
| Israelis wanted for decades. If it were a general
| discussion about Citizens United and I focused on
| lobbying from only this group, perhaps your argument
| would have carried water.
|
| Anyway, here's Trump himself detailing the extraordinary
| access to White House this lobbying bought Adelsons:
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-salutes-mega-
| donor-mi...
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Ideally we would completely restructure the government to
| have multimember districts and change the Senate.
|
| Within the current structure, we need to implement
| ranked/scored voting to break the two party system and the
| implied complete control it has over our government. It's so
| much easier for big money to control the narrative, control
| the candidates, and play off extreme polar politics when the
| voting system makes people choose the "lesser of two evils".
|
| Were I king for a day in the US, and could only do one thing
| to help America, changing our voting system to some kind of
| rank/scored system would be it. Ending gerrymandering and
| Citizens United are also important but honestly less so than
| this.
| subdude wrote:
| Coming as a shock to only the most gullible people on Earth.
| shusaku wrote:
| It's still pretty unclear how in the US is planning to go. For
| example, manifold still rates the chance that Iran's regime
| falls this year at 46%, which should be a given if the US put
| boots on the ground.
| https://manifold.markets/SaviorofPlant/will-irans-regime-fal...
| jjtwixman wrote:
| Fell For It Again one-hundred-time world champions.
| coffinbirth wrote:
| At this point, no country in the world will ever again 'make a
| deal' with the US, because while pretending to negotiate with you
| they try to ram a knife into your back.
| jameshilliard wrote:
| It was pretty obvious that if the negotiations failed that the
| US would respond by attacking Iran. Iran didn't seem willing to
| give up their nuclear weapons program regardless of the quite
| predictable consequences.
| lyu07282 wrote:
| You all just keep lying endlessly, I think most people get it
| at this point. Iran was prepared to go further than the
| JCPOA, it was never enough because it was never about nuclear
| weapons.
|
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/peace-within-
| reach-...
| throwawayheui57 wrote:
| I speak Persian (Farsi) and in state TV, every day, they
| said we won't back down and won't give up anything. Watch
| the supreme leader's translated speech. Straight from the
| horse mouth! Who's lying here?
|
| Just to be clear I'm not pro war! I take Iranian regime as
| the first and foremost responsible party in this mess and
| then US! My people stuck in this disaster of a power
| struggle.
| lyu07282 wrote:
| What do you even think the words diplomacy and
| negotiation even mean? Of course it included independent
| oversight to any extend the US wanted. There is nothing
| that Iran can do to satisfy the requirements for peace
| because the goal of the US is war, Iran has no interest
| in war that leads to their destruction. For fuck sake it
| didn't even include any sanction relief! Wake the fuck
| up!
|
| The magnitude of human suffering this will bring, civil
| war, sectarian violence, it all leads to hundreds of
| millions of people dying, millions of people displaced.
| Nobody likes the Iranian regime, just like nobody liked
| Saddam, its not the point. These wars are barbaric, not
| in the interests of anybody but Israel and a select few
| American arms dealers and pedophiles that propagandize
| their way to barely conscious sheep in the west clapping
| along to the barbarism AGAIN.
| throwawayheui57 wrote:
| > Wake the fuck up!
|
| The obnoxious sanctimonious behavior of telling random
| Iranians to "wake the fuck up" as if we have a saying in
| what either Iranian government or the US side does. Go
| pound sand.
| lyu07282 wrote:
| Evidently I care more about the hundreds of thousands of
| Iranian people that will die in this war than you. All
| you do is repeat the talking points of the Trump
| administration. I've seen this all before, the Iraq war
| broke peoples brains in exactly the same way, nobody
| learned anything at all.
| throwawayheui57 wrote:
| Oh these poor Iranians need saviors, they don't know
| what's good for them. We know better. They don't learn.
|
| Don't you see any similarity between what you say and any
| colonial. And my brain is broken?
|
| Let me put it in a way that's easy to comprehend for you.
| War is bad and Iranian government is as much responsible
| for this war as the US. I don't understand how this is so
| triggering for some.
|
| edit.
|
| > Evidently I care more about the hundreds of thousands
| of Iranian people that will die in this war than you.
|
| Did you care equally when thousands of Iranians were
| massacred in the streets by the government or the "care"
| activates only when convenient?
| lyu07282 wrote:
| > Oh these poor Iranians need saviors, they don't know
| what's good for them. We know better. They don't learn.
|
| I'm anti-interventionism, you can't seriously reframe
| that into western chauvinism.
|
| > War is bad and Iranian government is as much
| responsible for this war as the US. I don't understand
| how this is so triggering for some.
|
| Because its just not true, there would be no war without
| the US and Israel starting it, PERIOD. It's triggering
| because you could've said exactly the same thing about
| the Iraq war, its always the same disaster and people
| never listen or learn anything, that's why its
| frustrating.
| Rover222 wrote:
| anti-interventionism is immoral at some point
| lyu07282 wrote:
| Do you think the Trump is doing this to help the Iranian
| people? Did Bush try to help the Iraqi people?
| throwawayheui57 wrote:
| > there would be no war without the US and Israel
| starting it, PERIOD.
|
| "there would be no war without Hamas starting it,
| PERIOD."
|
| See how dishonest and ignorant that sounds?
|
| For everyone else reading this thread as Iran being
| bombed: In 47 years of constant confrontation, islamic
| regime has not built one fucking bomb shelter for its
| people for these days. Let that sink in. Don't believe
| these people who suddenly start to care about Iranian
| lives by taking the regime's side and also don't believe
| US officials when they say they do all these for our
| freedom.
| Matl wrote:
| The US demands were for Iran to give up all its offensive
| capabilities so that Israel and the US can bomb it with
| impunity every time they please.
|
| It would be foolish for the Iranians to agree to that.
| But useful idiots will be useful idiots.
| throwawayheui57 wrote:
| Iran's FM's statements on the negotiations contradict
| these claims. They said that they had productive talks
| and reasonable progress! Did they lie?
| Matl wrote:
| 'productive talks and reasonable progress' is what
| diplomats almost always say in negotiations in order to
| maintain a reasonable atmosphere for possible further
| negotiations, this is not rocket science.
|
| They also said the US demands are completely
| unreasonable, which you conveniently left out.
| throwawayheui57 wrote:
| > They also said the US demands are completely
| unreasonable, which you conveniently left out.
|
| Can you give me some official sources that explain what
| exactly was negotiated and demanded on both sides?
| Matl wrote:
| TL;DR Iran wants essentially symbolic enrichment so they
| could save face domestically, the US wants it to limit
| the range of its missiles so they could not reach Israel
| when Israel attacks.
|
| I want to avoid linking particular sources because I know
| it's easy to call this or that biased etc. but it's easy
| to look up even in Israeli sources.
| throwawayheui57 wrote:
| But that's not what you said:
|
| > The US demands were for Iran to give up all its
| offensive capabilities
| Matl wrote:
| Iran shortening the range of its missiles to the point
| where they can no longer reach Israel _is_ what Iran
| giving up all its offensive capabilities means given that
| the missile threat is the only meaningful response Iran
| can have to a preemptive Israeli attack.
|
| What's your point?
| hjkl0 wrote:
| I can tell you that in Israel, the prime minister is
| daily on the news describing how much we are ready to
| give up and prepared to back down.
|
| Obviously the leaders of both our countries want what's
| best for all of us and always tell us the truth, right?
| Revanche1367 wrote:
| For a Persian you have very US republican boomer speaking
| patterns. And of course a very recent account.
| lyu07282 wrote:
| I presume its just an Iranian living in the west? Just
| look at the Miami Cubans cheering on the total energy
| blockade killing Cuba right now, its not entirely unusual
| for immigrants to sound like US republican boomers sadly.
| jameshilliard wrote:
| > For a Persian you have very US republican boomer
| speaking patterns.
|
| Most Persians I know will support just about anyone who
| will go against the regime, there were huge protests all
| over the world recently by the Iranian diaspora calling
| for the regime to be destroyed after tens of thousands of
| protesters were murdered by the regime all over Iran.
| jameshilliard wrote:
| > it was never about nuclear weapons
|
| The only reason to enrich uranium to 60% like Iran was
| doing is for nuclear weapons purposes.
| pseingatl wrote:
| True. Medical needs require only a lower percentage. I
| don't know if Iran was planning any fission reactors.
| halflife wrote:
| And burying your facilities under a mountain is not
| suspect at all
| pydry wrote:
| Not especially. Their other facilities were being bombed
| routinely by Israel (along with infrastructure).
| halflife wrote:
| So they have medical grade uranium facility under a
| mountain? If that's all they need, wouldn't it be easier
| to just purchase it from a third party instead of
| investing billions of dollars hiding from Israel?
| pydry wrote:
| They have a military base under a mountain, not a uranium
| enrichment facility.
|
| Building military defenses against crazed, genocidal,
| racial supremacists who routinely fire missiles at your
| country seems more like sensible forward planning to me
| rather than evidence of a guilty conscience.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| That's not the point. The point is that the attacks on
| Iran are not about the nuclear weapons. Iran entered the
| JCPOA and complied with it, it had completely suspended
| any nuclear weapons program. But that didn't matter for
| Israel and their sycophants in US foreign policy, because
| for them the nuclear weapons program is at best only one
| part of the problem. Their real problem is that Iran is
| an independent state in the region that refuses to accept
| Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of
| Lebanon, and that refuses to comply with US policies more
| broadly.
|
| Overall the goal is not to stop Iran's nuclear program,
| though that is part of it. The goal would be to install a
| government in Iran that is friendly to Israel and the
| USA, or, failing that, to completely destroy their
| economy and defense such that they effectively can't act
| outside their own borders.
| tome wrote:
| > Israel's occupation of ... parts of Lebanon
|
| Which parts of Lebanon does Israel occupy?
| orwin wrote:
| The south. It's not a real occupation like the west bank,
| it's more of a 'raid and pillage' thing. No rape reported
| yet, so it isn't at all like the West Bank.
| Qem wrote:
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/14/un-
| peacekeepers-sa...
| tome wrote:
| > The wall extends across the so-called Blue Line and has
| made "more than 4,000 square metres [43,055sq feet] of
| Lebanese territory inaccessible to the Lebanese people"
|
| So you're saying Israel's occupation of Lebanon amounts
| to 4,000 square metres? About the area of an athletics
| track, I guess? (Not counting the bit inside the
| athletics track.)
| Y-bar wrote:
| How much land area, exactly, is another nation allowed to
| seize by force before it becomes unacceptable to you? It
| obviously is not that much given the tone of your
| message.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Lebanese_co
| nfl...
| tome wrote:
| That's not the question I'm interested in. The question
| I'm interested in is whether it's correct to claim that
| Israel occupies "parts of Lebanon", particularly in the
| context in which the claim was made, next to the claim
| that it occupies Gaza and the West Bank.
| Y-bar wrote:
| I could have sworn that I saw a goalpost here. Why is it
| over there now?
| tome wrote:
| The goalpost is "Israel's occupation of ... parts of
| Lebanon". Do you agree with tsimionescu that Israel
| occupies parts of Lebanon? Can you back that up?
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Israel only has outposts in Lebanese territory.
|
| In Syria, Israel had a buffer zone since 1974. Last year
| they said the agreement had "collapsed" and went on to
| occupy even more territoru:
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/26/israel-carries-
| out-...
|
| Palestine is occupied.
| swingboy wrote:
| This. Everything going on is one step closer to Israeli
| dominance of the region and "Greater Israel".
| metalman wrote:
| there are many reasons to do nuclear research beyond
| medicine, for batteries like the ones powering the
| voyager space craft, nuclear reactors come in a wide
| variety of configurations, and many of them actualy
| produce more radioactive elements that then need to be
| managed. 60% is nothing,80% is nothing, it needs to be
| 93%++, and LOTS of it to build a bomb, and given the
| number of bombs already arrayed around Iran, they would
| need 100's and all the infrastructure to become a
| credible threat , for which they plainly dont have the
| money to afford. The wildly unpopular leaders going after
| Iran need a scapegoat, or rather a continious supply of
| scapegoats, but have failed to recognise that the world
| is moving past them.
| kyboren wrote:
| 60% is actually very close to 93%. To go from natural
| uranium (<1% U235) to 60% represents the vast majority of
| the effort. From 60% to 93% is actually quite quick; most
| of the material is already U235. And they already have
| enough to build maybe a dozen bombs.
|
| They also have (had?) a very active ballistic missile
| program, and have conducted implosion experiments.
|
| The constellation of evidence is quite clear: Iran is a
| threshold nuclear state with all the pieces necessary to
| credibly threaten the region (and soon the US homeland)
| with nuclear weapons.
| za3faran wrote:
| Talking hypotheticals, while the actual threat to the
| region are the usa and israel
| kyboren wrote:
| Nice segue.
|
| We've gone from, "The amazing Islamic Republic of Iran
| isn't even capable of building deliverable nuclear
| weapons and they have lots of peaceful reasons to do
| enrichment to 60%!" to "Yeah OK, they are capable and
| they are indeed enriching Uranium for their weapons
| program--hey, look over here! USA and Israel!!!"
| za3faran wrote:
| It's not a segue, USA and israel have been literally
| destabilizing the region for many decades now. They
| survive on chaos
| Matl wrote:
| No, the reason is to have a deterrence so that Iran could
| say, 'hey, if you attack us we'll develop nukes'.
|
| By the way, I am a lot more worried about Israel and its
| actual nuclear stockpile that has zero oversight.
| gryzzly wrote:
| Its good u have no say in whatever important.
| jameshilliard wrote:
| > By the way, I am a lot more worried about Israel and
| its actual nuclear stockpile that has zero oversight.
|
| Iran regularly threatens to destroy Israel, the opposite
| is not the case.
| po_ta_to wrote:
| You believe everything the US says? lol
| jameshilliard wrote:
| > You believe everything the US says?
|
| Iranian officials publicly refused to give up their nuclear
| program, no need to trust the US here.
| coffinbirth wrote:
| It was Trump who cancelled to JCPOA. Also, sending Witkoff
| and Kushner as negotiators is already an obvious sign the US
| is dishonest about preventing conflicts through diplomacy,
| otherwise they would send experienced diplomats. It is really
| the US Epstein Class Deep State government to blame here.
|
| They could have named the DOD the "Department Of Peace",
| instead they called it the "Department Of War", showing their
| true face and trajectory.
|
| At this point it is really the people of the US to rise up
| and implement a Regime Change from within to change things
| for the better.
| no-name-here wrote:
| 1. The U.S. and Iran had already negotiated and signed a
| nuclear agreement between our countries but Trump reneged on
| the already-negotiated agreement. 2. Trump claimed that
| his previous attacks on Iran within the last year "completely
| and totally obliterated" their nuclear program, "obliterated
| like nobody's ever seen before" - both direct Trump quotes.
| Trump was quite clear that Iran's nuclear program had already
| been destroyed like nothing had ever been destroyed before.
| jameshilliard wrote:
| > 1. The U.S. and Iran had already negotiated and signed a
| nuclear agreement between our countries but Trump reneged
| on the already-negotiated agreement.
|
| Yeah, I agree that was probably a bad idea, doesn't make
| what I stated above any less true.
|
| > 2. Trump claimed that his previous attacks on Iran within
| the last year "completely and totally obliterated" their
| nuclear program, "obliterated like nobody's ever seen
| before" - both direct Trump quotes. Trump was quite clear
| that Iran's nuclear program had already been destroyed like
| nothing had ever been destroyed before.
|
| Yes...Trump lies all the time, that's nothing new.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| > doesn't make what I stated above any less true.
|
| Yes it does, it makes everything you said untrue. You
| stated Iran doesn't want to give up its nuclear
| programme, not true. Iran in fact already did agree to
| it, Trump then threw that in the trash.
|
| Second, it shows the Nuclear threat wasn't the issue
| because he had a solution for it and threw it away. Then
| bombed Iran destroying it ostensibly, then continued
| bombing for regime change. So it's not obvious
| negotiations failed over nuclear which you stated,
| because it wasn't about nuclear.
|
| Negotiations failed over dismantling Iranian power,
| mostly its ballistic weapons. i.e. give up weapons and
| make yourself defenseless to maintain peace. Like the
| Palestinians did with Israel, after which they're still
| being murdered daily, aid is still being blocked, and the
| west bank is increasingly being colonised. In other words
| an absurd ask from a sovereign country with multiple
| expansionist neighbours including one that bombed you and
| virtually all its neighbours last year.
| jameshilliard wrote:
| > You stated Iran doesn't want to give up its nuclear
| programme, not true. Iran in fact already did agree to it
|
| JCPOA didn't fully eliminate the nuclear program, it
| mostly just kept it from getting too far along.
|
| > Second, it shows the Nuclear threat wasn't the issue
| because he had a solution for it and threw it away. Then
| bombed Iran destroying it ostensibly, then continued
| bombing for regime change. So it's not obvious
| negotiations failed over nuclear which you stated,
| because it wasn't about nuclear.
|
| Nuclear isn't the only issue either, but Iranian
| officials made it clear they would not give up their
| nuclear program.
|
| > Negotiations failed over dismantling Iranian power,
| mostly its ballistic weapons. i.e. give up weapons and
| make yourself defenseless to maintain peace.
|
| Iran isn't interested in maintaining peace, they want to
| continue destabilizing the entire region.
|
| > Like the Palestinians did with Israel, after which
| they're still being murdered daily, aid is still being
| blocked, and the west bank is increasingly being
| colonised.
|
| Last I checked Hamas has refused to give up their
| weapons.
|
| > In other words an absurd ask from a sovereign country
| with multiple expansionist neighbours including one that
| bombed you and virtually all its neighbours last year.
|
| Iran has repeatedly threatened the destruction of Israel,
| it's not surprising that Israel and the US are taking
| those threats seriously.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| Yes it did give up the nuclear program with respect to it
| being a weapon's program, this is what every expert
| agrees with. Also the reason every country signed this
| deal.
|
| > Nuclear isn't the only issue either, but Iranian
| officials made it clear they would not give up their
| nuclear program.
|
| False, they were very clear they would give it up. Are
| you at all aware of what Iran has been saying through its
| diplomatic channels? Listen to what the neutral parties
| are saying, it's clear on this.
|
| > Iran isn't interested in maintaining peace, they want
| to continue destabilizing the entire region.
|
| Alright time to stop talking to you. You've got a very
| black/white child like view on geopolitics.
|
| > Last I checked Hamas has refused to give up their
| weapons.
|
| Hamas had one lever to pull: hostages. Hamas gave the
| last tens of them up in return for a cease-fire to stop
| the killing of at the time exceeding 100 thousand
| civilians (admitted by Israel itself), but Israeli
| killing and expansion has only continued. Iran set-up the
| deal, US tore its own deal apart and bombed it. Do you
| think these are parties to make another deal with, to
| give up any leverage you still have in the hope they
| won't reneg later and leave you worse off? Don't be
| silly.
|
| > Iran has repeatedly threatened the destruction of
| Israel, it's not surprising that Israel and the US are
| taking those threats seriously.
|
| As have Israel and the US, does it warrant a strike on
| these countries? Don't be ridiculous, it's rhetoric to
| the base. What matters is policy. Israel has expanded its
| borders, Iran hasn't. Israel has bombed Iran and
| assasinated its leadership, the reverse isn't true.
| Israel and US reneged on their agreements that Iran
| upheld.
| bambax wrote:
| What's predictable is, if you don't have nuclear weapons, you
| get attacked. Ask Ukraine. If I were a small country (any
| country for that matter) the first order of business would be
| to build myself nuclear weapons now.
| pydry wrote:
| Ask Libya. They gave up their nuclear weapons program as a
| sign of good will.
|
| The US then lied through their teeth to the security
| council about wanting to conduct a humanitarian operation
| and instead acted as the rebels' air force, helping them
| win and subsequently leaving the country in utter ruin.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Did Israel bomb the Iranian negotiators again?
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| there is news iran accepted to zero nuclear enrichment so
| what are you saying?
| dodomodo wrote:
| there were not such news
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| https://www.moneycontrol.com/world/oman-says-iran-agrees-
| to-...
|
| why are you lying
| netsharc wrote:
| They were literally in the middle of negotiations, but Trump
| started the war anyway...
| strangegecko wrote:
| "In the middle of negotiations" is arguably more and more
| used as a carte blanche to do whatever you want in the
| meantime. Prominent recent example being Putin pretending
| to be ready to negotiate for peace while bombing Ukraine.
|
| The question is really whether negotiations were going on
| in good faith with the actual goal of realistic compromise.
|
| None of us know that side, I would assume.
| jameshilliard wrote:
| > They were literally in the middle of negotiations, but
| Trump started the war anyway...
|
| It was pretty clear the negotiations had stalled based on
| statements put out by Iranian officials.
| mullingitover wrote:
| I doubt the negotiations were in good faith, probably just a
| political 'see, we tried' gesture full of deal-breaker bad
| faith proposals. I think the plan all along has been to
| attack, probably for more than a year.
|
| You don't go and rename a whole federal department to
| 'Department of War' when you _don 't_ intend to get into
| wars.
| jameshilliard wrote:
| > I doubt the negotiations were in good faith, probably
| just a political 'see, we tried' gesture full of deal-
| breaker bad faith proposals.
|
| Iranian officials made public statements refusing to give
| up their nuclear weapons program so they weren't
| negotiating in good faith either. Terrorists like the
| Iranian regime can never be allowed to have access to
| nuclear weapons for obvious reasons.
| mullingitover wrote:
| Iran has always said they don't _have_ a nuclear weapons
| program, so where are you getting this wild claim that
| suddenly they do a 180 on its existence, and at the same
| time announce refuse to give it up?
| jameshilliard wrote:
| > Iran has always said they don't have a nuclear weapons
| program, so where are you getting this wild claim that
| suddenly they do a 180 on its existence, and at the same
| time announce refuse to give it up?
|
| You do not enrich uranium to 60% like Iran was doing
| unless you have a nuclear weapons program.
| Havoc wrote:
| You just need access to the videos then the pedo cabal does
| whatever you want
| FrankSaaSDev wrote:
| Somehow world will close eyes again ... Somehow we need to
| bring back moral standards that we all have deep in ourselves
| and screw this money world me all made together... I dont have
| answers or ideas how but this is just nonsense
| nerdyadventurer wrote:
| US has been always playing god, cunning manipulations all
| over the world. Most of the Europe was silent until recently
| when Greenland under threat. US benefits from every war
| either oil, rare metals, trade, weapons, there is always an
| agenda even though they are not directly involved.
| TurdF3rguson wrote:
| I'm pretty sure US higher-ups have been publicly describing
| Iran regime change as a todo-list item for a while now...
| upofadown wrote:
| Canadian here...
|
| The world already know this. Having an agreement with the USA
| is a lot like having an agreement with Darth Vader. The terms
| of the deal can be altered unexpectedly at any time.
|
| That doesn't mean that such agreements are worthless. They can
| still be of value to the counties making them. It is just that
| those countries have to take into account the unreliability of
| the entity they are making the deal with. Deals with the USA
| involve a lot of forecasting.
| dgellow wrote:
| I hope you're right but not too confident that will be the
| case. I wish EU leadership wouldn't be as spineless as it is.
| I'm afraid they will accept any opportunity to make things feel
| as if they are back to the old normal if they are given the
| opportunity. And that would of course backfire, but long term
| thinking hasn't been our strength over the past 3 decades or
| so...
| komali2 wrote:
| Ever since the ICE stuff I've been desperate to find a way to not
| pay my taxes - even if it means donating 2, 3x, hell 4x my tax
| bill to somewhere else. Obviously it's basically impossible to do
| this (especially if your income is all self employment income)
| outside of just spending every penny you earn on something that
| could be viably considered a business expense. So I'm wondering
| if I should just straight up stop working until I can relinquish
| my USA citizenship.
|
| Spend down my savings and assets till I have almost nothing to
| exit tax, exit, and then start working again.
|
| I don't want to fund the bombing of strangers I have no quarrel
| with.
| dmos62 wrote:
| If you're willing to go through all this trouble, why not just
| become politically active? Don't underestimate what a motivated
| individual can do. All these public figures (or institutions)
| swaying the country back and forth are only people too.
| upmind wrote:
| I would rather vote for a person from hackernews than any
| other politician right now tbh...
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| "both sides" still with this?
| komali2 wrote:
| I was politically active in the USA, in the only way I
| believe can make any meaningful change: direct action, mutual
| aid.
|
| The American political system is captured by two neoliberal
| (one now post liberal, fascist) parties, and you have to sell
| your soul to "accomplish" anything, only to watch it yet
| ratcheted away by your own party, or obliterated by the
| fascists.
| dmos62 wrote:
| Btw, an example of a person making a difference:
| https://www.youtube.com/garyseconomics
| propagandist wrote:
| You're a good person and I feel similarly. We live under the
| Fourth Reich.
|
| I do not think ceasing work is the right move, but definitely
| get involved politically and don't equivocate when you condemn
| our elected "representatives".
|
| It might also soothe your soul to be in the company of like-
| minded individuals. A Quaker prayer is a sure place to find
| many.
| Noaidi wrote:
| I'll be a willing receptacle for your donations. I am homeless
| living with schizoaffective disorder and could use the help!
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| That would be unsound? Travel to Europe _before_ giving your
| assets away so you can stick the landing and work on building
| useful stuff there instead.
| greyface- wrote:
| This is a laudable position, and I don't say this to discourage
| you or others from taking this action, but taxation does not
| effectively constrain US military spending, as long as the USD
| remains globally desirable and the US retains the ability to
| print more of them.
| krembo wrote:
| Even if you don't support US & IL standing in the frontlines
| against the terror regime, at least pray for the freedom of the
| people of Iran, 90m people held hostages by the regime. If you
| are pro-peace, do not be hypocrite, some wars are needed to
| defeat evil.
| FrankSaaSDev wrote:
| US needs to start thinking that you are not givinig someone
| freedom bt bombing them. You have soo much of your problems but
| your money printing machine is working and that is only reason
| that you can say that. Its not about 90m people its about your
| pockets...
| bigyabai wrote:
| This is bad-faith rationalization. Looking at your comment
| history confirms that you only use HN to steer political
| narratives.
| apexalpha wrote:
| While I have no love for the Iranian regime I fear this will end
| up like the 'liberation' of Iraq: A massive power vacuum in an
| unstable Islamic regime.
|
| What even is the plan here if the air assault fails? Boots on the
| ground? In Iran?
| viking123 wrote:
| The place has 90 million people, how do you even deal with this
| without throwing the whole place into chaos?
|
| Besides, after this the collective west has no moral high-
| ground anymore, the global south will resent us more than ever.
| If other countries go to aggressive wars, our condemnation is
| worthless.
|
| Trump is completely compromised and it was probably the powers
| that be who told them that this is how it is going to be.
| graemep wrote:
| There is no such thing as the "global south" other than in
| the minds of westerners and westernised elites (and elites
| are getting less westernised). From a western viewpoint you
| can lump the rest of the world together, but it makes no
| sense from any other view point.
|
| As for moral high ground. Compared to whom? China? Russia?
| Myanmar?
| seydor wrote:
| China
| nerdyadventurer wrote:
| > Besides, after this the collective west has no moral high-
| ground anymore
|
| They never had any morals, all for their business gains look
| at Middle East, Africa and Asian countries where they were
| involved. Europe always looked other way when US does
| something and vise versa.
| samrus wrote:
| The moral peak of the west was siding with egypt against
| uk/france in the suez canal dispute. Its been downhill
| since then. Especially nam
| altern8 wrote:
| What does it mean "fail"?
|
| What is the goal, to overthrow the regime, so success would
| mean a change of government?
|
| (sorry, I haven't followed)
| halflife wrote:
| So replacing a fascist with western antagonism and constant
| threat on American allies, with a somewhat democratic, weak,
| and western aligned government?
|
| Sounds like a good idea
| seydor wrote:
| It sounds like you believe that the people of Iran don't
| support the regime and are secretly loving america.
| halflife wrote:
| You can say the same thing for Iraq, but here we are.
| citrin_ru wrote:
| I don't think it's possible to change regime without boots on
| the ground which is not currently considered. So there will be
| no power vacuum, at most Iran military will be weaken. It's not
| a big win for the US but would allow Trump to safe face after
| his demands were essentially rejected.
| esseph wrote:
| I imagine CIA political officers are on the ground right now.
| graemep wrote:
| Iraq was not an Islamic regime in the same sense. It was not a
| theocracy. There were non Muslims in senior political
| positions.
|
| The Iraqi government was a lot more stable.
|
| What exactly do you imagine will replace the Iranian government
| that is worse?
| riffraff wrote:
| Was ISIS better or worse than Iran's government is now?
| bojan wrote:
| That all being said, we are talking about different cultures.
| Iranians are on average more educated than Iraqis were/are,
| and the country is ethnically more homogeneous.
|
| So I have hope that they'll find a way to organize when the
| current regime falls.
| dastuer wrote:
| And we're mostly not religious at all.
|
| We have Ramadan here now. No one cares. Arab influencer
| come and make videos and are shocked
|
| Everyone eats and drinks during the days we don't care
| rwyinuse wrote:
| Yeah this is what lots of Western people don't get. The
| cultural / ideological gap between rulers and those being
| ruled appears much larger in Iran than in most other
| Muslim countries.
|
| Many countries have hardcore conservative rulers AND
| population, but in Iran the problem is mostly just the
| rulers. With better government, Iran would have so much
| potential.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| I know that, but what I don't get is with a society like
| that, how can a theocratic government last for so long?
| Maybe I'm being naive, but authoritarian governments tend
| to fall when an educated population is against them. Iran
| looks like a weird case to me in this respect in that the
| population seems to be against (and honestly, seems to be
| quite brave) and still the theocracy goes on and on.
|
| Anyway, best of luck in this. Your people deserve better.
| dastuer wrote:
| Thank you.
|
| Yes, it's complex. Firstly, the regime isn't truly
| theocratic.
|
| There are many online videos of regime family members
| enjoying parties and alcohol.
|
| The second piece: I assume 10-20% of people were
| participating in the exploitation of our country. They
| kept the other 80% in control for a long time.
| Revanche1367 wrote:
| Yet another very recent account on HN claiming to be
| Persian and speaking about things on the ground in Iran.
| Can't you guys at least try a little harder to be
| convincing?
| yard2010 wrote:
| Please provide sources when claiming such bold claims.
| mathgeek wrote:
| Not the GP nor claiming anything , but
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran is
| what you are asking for.
| bojan wrote:
| I don't understand this. What you call bold claims are
| easily verifiable facts. Demographic and education level
| statistics are widely available online, choose your
| source of choice.
|
| I'm pretty sure there are also a lot of people on this
| site that anecdotally know this from their contact with
| Iranian diaspora.
| RobertoG wrote:
| what are you talking about? Iran is a sophisticated country
| with a parliament and elections, with a powerful civil
| society. It has 90 million inhabitants. They graduated more
| women in STEM disciplines than the USA. Yes, it's a
| theocracy, but it's more free than Saudi Arabia for instance.
|
| Are the Americans going to bomb the Saudis next? or only if
| Israel ask for it?
| graemep wrote:
| What exactly did I say that you disagree with?
| kqr wrote:
| Nothing at all could be worse!
|
| One of the issues with Iraq was that Rumsfeld didn't want to
| acknowledge that it takes _more_ personnel post-toppling (to
| rebuild infrastructure and institutions) than during
| invasion. It seems like the current government could be prone
| to make the same mistake.
|
| I recommend anyone interested in this to read _Cobra II_. It
| 's an excellent book.
| apexalpha wrote:
| >What exactly do you imagine will replace the Iranian
| government that is worse?
|
| A regime that only controls the capital, leaving the rest of
| the country in a power vacuum leading to internal conflicts
| and sectarian violence that will eventually spill over the
| borders into Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq etc...
| blks wrote:
| No government and another perpetual war zone.
| Matl wrote:
| Iraq was attacking its neighbors every couple of years, Iran
| is not.
|
| Iran has shown that it is remarkably sane actually, given the
| aggression shown towards it by Israel and the US and has made
| a lot of efforts to reach a deal.
|
| Remember, it was the US that exited the JCPOA and now it
| wants Iran to give up all its misses so that they would be
| defenseless.
|
| I have no love for theocracies, but I do think the Iranian
| system is a lot better than the likes of Saudi Arabia, which
| we're buddy buddy with.
|
| Oh and I guess the founder of Syrian branch of AQ and deputy
| head of ISIS running Syria is better that what was before
| too, in your book?
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| >Iraq was attacking its neighbors every couple of years,
| Iran is not.
|
| Nonsense. Iran has been stirring up trouble in the region
| for a long time.
| Matl wrote:
| Indeed, Israel just wants to occupy the Palestinians in
| peace.
|
| Perhaps you forgot that it was Iraq who attacked Iran and
| Kuwait while Iran attacked no country but hey.
| jonnybgood wrote:
| Iran attacks its neighbors through proxies: Hizbollah,
| Houthis, Shiite militias, and Hamas. These groups are armed
| and funded by Iran.
| Matl wrote:
| Oh yes, and the fact that Israel is just sitting there
| occupying millions of Palestinians, attacking Syria,
| Lebanon etc. despite a 'ceasefire' has nothing to do with
| why these groups continue to exist, I am sure.
|
| Iran's funding for these groups is a part of its 'defense
| in depth' strategy since it doesn't have the capability
| to project power otherwise. I am not saying that it is
| the right thing to do, but I am also not that surprised
| that backed into a corner, they're trying to build
| regional proxies. It's not like the US and Israel are not
| doing the same in and around Iran.
|
| But I like how these statements, like yours, are always
| made with zero context and hope for an uninformed
| audience to upvote them.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Iran 's funding for these groups is a part of its
| 'defense in depth' strategy_
|
| That's the rationalisation. Not a justification. Defence
| in depth was Hitler's rationale for invading Russia, is
| Israel's strategy for pacifying neighbors, and is
| Russia's excuse for invading Ukraine.
|
| Creating weak neighbors is checklist-item one for any
| classical aspiring land empire. It's also tremendously
| destabilising to its neighbourhood. (It's not a
| coincidence that China and Russia are bordered by (a)
| shitshows or (b) countries militarily posturing against
| them.)
| Matl wrote:
| > Hitler's rationale
|
| Ah yes, give any discussion enough time and Hitler
| inevitably gets to be whoever your opponent is.
|
| Unlike Hitler, unlike Israel and unlike the US, Iran has
| not proactively attacked.
|
| Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia,
| Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear
| an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is
| happening right now ffs.
|
| Western governments provide funding and shelter for
| extremist Iranian groups like People's Mojahedin
| Organization of Iran and various separatists movements
| inside the country, so please spare me this Hitler
| nonsense.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _give any discussion enough time and Hitler inevitably
| gets to be whoever your opponent is_
|
| Because it fits. Nazi Germany was an aspiring land power.
| You can see the same effect in Imperial Rome and the
| Persian empires. (And, while America was conquering its
| own continent, on the peripheries of Manifest-Destiny
| America.)
|
| > _Unlike Hitler, unlike Israel and unlike the US, Iran
| has not proactively attacked_
|
| Of course they have. Its proxies are constantly
| proactively attacking everyone in their neighbourhood.
|
| > _Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia,
| Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear
| an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is
| happening right now ffs_
|
| Everyone has reason to fear attack from everyone. Defence
| in depth is a regionally-destabilising response to that
| security imperative. And by the way, Russia and Germany
| _did_ wind up going to war with each other. Same as Iran
| and Israel, that same one whose anihiliation the former
| has been chanting for since its revolution.
|
| Arguing Iran has been some peaceful country minding its
| own business is totally inaccurate.
| Matl wrote:
| > by the way, Russia and Germany did wind up going to war
| with each other. Same as Iran and Israel,
|
| Are you seriously arguing that Hitler was rational for
| preemptively attacking Russia because AFTER Hitler
| attacked Russia, Russia did not simply sit back and let
| itself be attacked but in fact started defending itself?
| And are you arguing that Israel doing the same is
| rational because AFTER Israel attacked Iran, Iran
| launched some missiles towards Israel IN RESPONSE TO THE
| ISRAELI ATTACK, therefore proving Israel right that Iran
| is going to attack them?
|
| > that same one whose anihiliation the former has been
| chanting for since its revolution.
|
| Oh and Israel has been nothing but wishing them happy
| Ramadan?
|
| The reason Israel does not want the current Iranian
| system to survive is because it sees it as the only
| possible threat to its eternal domination of the
| Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in
| the Middle East.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Are you seriously arguing that Hitler was rational for
| preemptively attacking Russia because AFTER Hitler
| attacked Russia, Russia did not simply sit back and let
| itself be attacked but in fact started defending itself?_
|
| No. I'm saying Hitler's theory of attacking Russia was
| the same as Iran's simultaneous proxy wars with its
| entire neighbourhood. It's not theoretically wrong. Just
| antiquated, destructive and-in the trade-based modern
| world-increasingly counterproductive. (You're trashing
| and alienating your natural trading partners.)
|
| And I'm drawing analogy between (a) "Iran has every
| reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at
| what is happening right now" and (b) the nonsense
| argument "that Hitler was rational for preemptively
| attacking Russia because AFTER Hitler attacked Russia,
| Russia did not simply sit back and let itself be
| attacked." In both cases, retaliation is being used to
| justify the preceding (note: not initial) aggression.
|
| > _Oh and Israel has been nothing but wishing them happy
| Ramadan?_
|
| If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and
| explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going
| to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked."
|
| > _reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system
| to survive is because it sees it as the only possible
| threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and
| its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle East_
|
| Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection
| into Gaza and the West Bank. Its ballistic missiles and
| nuclear programme, on the other hand, are an existential
| threat to Tel Aviv/Jerusalem. And yes, it's a regional
| competitor to Israeli (and Saudi and Emirati) hegemony.
| Matl wrote:
| > Iran's simultaneous proxy wars with its entire
| neighborhood
|
| Except that's not happening and is complete BS. It also
| assumes these proxies have no agency and would not have
| acted on their own.
|
| > It's not theoretically wrong. Just antiquated,
| destructive and-in the trade-based modern world-
| increasingly counterproductive. (You're trashing and
| alienating your natural trading partners.)
|
| Guess what would allow Iran to peacefully trade with
| Israel. The end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian
| territories. The reason Iran cannot simply ignore that
| occupation is because it would loose the moral high
| ground in the Shia/Muslim world. And having that moral
| high ground (i.e. its support for the Palestinian cause)
| is also part of its power projection strategy.
|
| > If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and
| explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going
| to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked.
|
| Given that Israel does indeed have ballistic missiles and
| is explicitly calling for for the annihilation of
| Palestinians, or even 'Arabs' in general, does that in
| your mind justify October 7th?
|
| > Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power
| projection into Gaza and the West Bank.
|
| Not Iran itself, but Israel insists that Iran support for
| 'proxies' is. Maybe not to Israeli power projection, but
| to its security at least.
| nixon_why69 wrote:
| > Arguing Iran has been some peaceful country minding its
| own business is totally inaccurate.
|
| Compared to Israel and the US, it would be a massive
| understatement to call Iran peaceful.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Compared to Israel and the US, it would be a massive
| understatement to call Iran peaceful_
|
| Sure. Which makes Iran a decidedly not-peaceful country.
| nixon_why69 wrote:
| At every step, for years, they've tried to de-escalate
| while Israel and the US launched direct attacks against
| them. Embassies bombed, that general in Iraq in 2020,
| last summer and now this. All of these attacks completely
| unprovoked except for the fact that they are friendly
| with Hamas and Hezbollah.
|
| They are practically Gandhi in this story.
|
| Looking forward, the problem with being irrationally
| hateful is that its irrational. What's the plan here?
| Persia will still exist, and its unlikely any future
| rulers will like Israel, given what's going on. So what's
| the win condition?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _At every step, for years, they 've tried to de-
| escalate_
|
| They've also, simultaneously, tried to escalate.
|
| > _All of these attacks completely unprovoked except for
| the fact that they are friendly with Hamas and Hezbollah_
|
| "Friendly with" in the way America was friendly with
| South Vietnam and South Korea. (Also, the IRGC has
| directly sponsored attacks, _e.g._ Bondi Beach.)
|
| > _They are practically Gandhi in this story_
|
| This is either stupid or dishonest.
|
| > _What 's the plan here?_
|
| Don't confuse specific criticism with endorsement of the
| war.
| thunky wrote:
| > Because it fits. Nazi Germany was an aspiring land
| power.
|
| Look at the mass murder by Israel in Gaza. Or how the US
| just overthrew Venezuela and seized their resources,
| threatened to take Greenland, taunts Canada and suggests
| more countries are in their sights.
|
| And now the two of them teamed up to bomb Iran,
| unprovoked, saying it's going to "annihilate their Navy"
| as their citizens run for cover.
|
| And your conclusion is Iran is the one that resembles
| Nazi Germany?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _your conclusion is Iran is the one that resembles Nazi
| Germany?_
|
| In this strategic aspect, yes. So does Israel. So do
| Russia and China. They're all acting like land empires.
| And they're all pursuing a strategy that seeks weak,
| unstable neighbours.
|
| It's a shitty strategy that does't earn one friends. The
| fact that it's theoretically coherent doesn't make it
| less shitty.
| thunky wrote:
| > In this strategic aspect, yes. So does Israel. So do
| Russia and China. They're all acting like land empires.
|
| The issue is that you seem to be ignoring the context and
| using this (weak imo) comparison to defend the US and
| Israel's decision to attack them.
| rwyinuse wrote:
| Iranian government massacres its own civilians whenever
| they dare to demand change. Iranians are also largely
| secular compared to citizens of most Arab states, and hate
| their government. They're also mostly Shia, which makes it
| hard for likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda to gain ground there,
| as Shias are enemies to Sunni extremists.
|
| I believe there's a much better change of democracy / sane
| regime in Iran, than there ever was in Iraq and other Arab
| states.
| Veen wrote:
| Iran attacks through its proxies.
| Matl wrote:
| Mossad was literally bragging that it is handing out
| weapons in Iran recently, but yes, Iran always 'attacks'
| for no reason and should not do anything no matter what
| happens right?
|
| Same as the Gaza and Lebanon ceasefires where one side
| stops attacking and the other (Israel) keeps bombing?
|
| I see how this works.
| bhouston wrote:
| " There were non Muslims in senior political positions."
|
| What are you talking about?
|
| Iraq is >95% Muslim, but there are a few different sub
| groups. With those numbers there were few in government then
| and now who are not Muslim.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iraq
| graemep wrote:
| Its very much Muslim minority, but having even a few in
| senior government positions (e.g. Tariq Aziz, who was
| foreign minister) is an indication that its not a
| theocracy.
|
| IT was a dictatorship, of course, but not a theocratic one.
| justin66 wrote:
| Iraq's Ba'ath party were secularists.
| Dig1t wrote:
| Your description of what happened in Iraq was exactly the point
| of why we invaded. Iraq and Iran were the two biggest threats
| to Israel, we got rid of Iraq and now we are removing the only
| other rival to Israel remaining in the Middle East.
|
| After this, Israel, being the only nuclear power in the region
| and having massive funding from the American taxpayer, will
| dominate the entire region. This has always been the goal.
| throwaway637372 wrote:
| After Iran falls - Turkey is next.
| hjkl0 wrote:
| After this, Israel, being the most dangerous rogue state in
| the world and extremely divided internally, will likely
| devolve into civil war.
|
| One hopes, anyway. That's the best chance we have to remove
| the Nazis currently in power here.
| seydor wrote:
| The plan is a show of power. Trump will leave in 2 years,
| leaving much of the world in disarray because he had no plan
| whatsoever, and his staff is literally out of the movie
| Idiocracy. Nothing of lasting value will come out of the
| horrors that happened in the past 3 years, and in 10 years we
| (the world) will look back into the present with disbelief.
| tasuki wrote:
| > in 10 years we will look back into the present with
| disbelief.
|
| You mean in 10 years, when the US is a stable and high-
| functioning democracy with independent media, a universally
| liked, charming, and polite president, supported by both the
| right and the left, who finally manage to overcome their
| minor differences? Is... is this the direction this is all
| heading?
| tdeck wrote:
| Maybe the feeling will be "I can't believe I didn't get out
| of there while I still could".
| baubino wrote:
| > in 10 years we (the world) will look back into the present
| with disbelief.
|
| This is a _very_ optimistic outlook, to the point of naivete,
| though I really hope you are right. In reality, neither Trump
| nor his cronies are acting like people who imagine they will
| be out of power anytime soon. In 10 years the world will
| likely still be dealing with the fallout of this
| administration, if not still dealing with the administration
| itself.
| thechao wrote:
| Hot take: Trump's denialism of 2020 and the use of '3rd
| term' is so that they can make a case that he can have a
| '4th term' -- that the will of the people to elect him
| overrides the constitutional limits of Presidency.
| autoexec wrote:
| I think both will be true. We'll be dealing with the
| fallout of this administration and dealing with his goons
| and cronies for decades while still looking back at this
| time in disbelief and wondering how we ever let it happen
| and what needs to change to prevent it in the future.
| nerdyadventurer wrote:
| > While I have no love for the Iranian regime
|
| Who say US is not regime? It is the world largest regime in the
| world, with bidders in every country to do their bidding, mass
| surveillance including their own country men. People blame only
| Russia, China, Iran etc when US have been doing the same for
| years.
|
| Watch: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/w6_2Ul3Ght8
| apexalpha wrote:
| I generally use 'regime' for autocratic governments.
|
| Trump is democratically elected, for now.
|
| I'm not actually sure if this is correct, English is not my
| native language.
| nerdyadventurer wrote:
| Iran also had elections, were they manipulated? I do not
| know. Were US people were manipulated using social media
| for elections. I do not know either.
|
| > Trump is democratically elected, for now.
|
| He was convicted felon before the election, I cannot
| believe that he won.
| ajb wrote:
| There is no precise definition. English has many synonyms
| where the formal meaning is the same, but one is used
| pejoratively because it's acquired a bad association.
| Regime is like that, formally it just means the rule of a
| particular party or system. It can still be used neutrally
| if not denoting a government.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I generally use 'regime' for autocratic governments_
|
| Which is fine.
|
| "In theory, the term need not imply anything about the
| particular government to which it relates, and most social
| scientists use it in a normative and neutral manner. The
| term, though, can be used in a political context. It is
| used colloquially by some, such as government officials,
| media journalists, and policy makers, when referring to
| governments that they believe are repressive, undemocratic,
| or illegitimate or simply do not square with the person's
| own view of the world. Used in this context, the concept of
| regime communicates a sense of ideological or moral
| disapproval or political opposition" [1].
|
| [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/regime
| samrus wrote:
| Regime just means ruling system. Western media prefers to
| use it as a shorthand for autocratic governments so it
| gotten a bad conotation, but any ruling system can be
| described as a regime, regardless of if you like it or not.
| The organization you work at has a "regime"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Who say US is not regime?_
|
| Who says it isn't? Regime literally means a system of
| government [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime#Usage
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > Boots on the ground? In Iran?
|
| Trump is a coward. He knows that boots on the ground will mean
| massive losses.
|
| The only way he does that is if someone convinces him that they
| can go in and out very quickly.
|
| Unlike Venezuela I doubt there are people in the right place to
| oust Khamenei.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| _Update_
|
| Turns out they bombed him
| Bender wrote:
| _What even is the plan here if the air assault fails? Boots on
| the ground? In Iran?_
|
| Other than nukes that would be the only option if they can
| blast the doors to the underground military cities. They will
| have to do it fast as the ships will not sustain combat for
| more than 5 days with their current ammo per the pentagon.
| bakies wrote:
| Why would warships only have ammo for 5 days??
| Rover222 wrote:
| This shows a real ignorance about the true culture of Iran. It
| is not a Muslim culture. They want to install the son of the
| shah, and get back to pre-revolution culture.
|
| But liberals will be quick to tell them they don't know best,
| better to just keep the oppressive ayatollah in power.
| techblueberry wrote:
| Maybe this is correct? I want this to be correct. But
| American entanglements in the Middle East have often
| overestimated the size of the "they" you're referring to.
| There are many "they's" in Iran, some of whom have been
| trained over time to hate the US.
|
| So like, I think this is the right choice, but Trump was
| elected by MAGA to avoid these kind of entanglements even
| when it was the right thing to do. In fact, I think
| "liberals" (not progressive) support this action more than
| many on the right.
|
| Traditional left/right is not useful to understanding
| people's support of our foreign policy in 2026 America.
| Tucker Carlson will hate this way more than Chuck Schumer.
| maxglute wrote:
| Interesting times intensifies. It's only February.
| pseingatl wrote:
| There are always unanticipated consequences in war. Argentina
| never thought in a million years that an attack on the
| practically undefended Falklands would result in the loss of the
| General Belgrano.
| rurban wrote:
| The headlines in Europe are that Israel is carrying out
| preventive strikes, the USA is helping.
|
| And that's certainly the deathbed of any hopes to a mullah regime
| change. They will come out stronger than before.
| karim79 wrote:
| I can't help but think that all this shit is because Netanyahu
| really wants to put off more court hearings on his lame ass
| corruption charges. I really can't wait for him and his cronies
| (in Israel, and the West) to be brought to justice.
|
| Without having to wait for the history books to do their thing.
| upmind wrote:
| Same, this is disgusting. Actions like these need oversight by
| the US people.
| halflife wrote:
| His court appearance are continuing as scheduled, twice a week,
| for the last year. except for some specific incidents where he
| had to leave of cancel due to running a state.
|
| No matter what you think, there is no way for him to avoid
| these hearings
| karim79 wrote:
| Great, for those minor charges of accepting what, something
| like 150k Eur in gifts. As opposed to life in prison for
| genocide, which he clearly and absolutely deserves.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| While Netanyahu definitely deserves that, don't expect anything
| to change for the better in Israeli foreign policy if he gets
| deposed and tried. Israeli politicians have become radicalized
| to a level that is hard to imagine from a European or US
| perspective.
|
| Even the leader of the "left wing" opposition has recently
| explicitly stated that Israel was gifted the entire region from
| the Euphrates to the Nile by God, so they would have a right to
| own the entire region, but that this must be balanced by
| security concerns and tactical realities. This happened in
| response to the US ambassador's explicit public remarks in the
| Tucker Carlson interview that also asserted Israel's God-given
| right to the entire region. Note that this region, from the
| Euphrates to the Nile, includes about half of Irak, parts of
| Syria, most of Lebanon, parts of Saudi Arabia, and of Egypt.
| Simon_ORourke wrote:
| Are all our foreign policy decisions now made in Tel Aviv to suit
| Israel?
| altern8 wrote:
| You know the answer ;-)
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| Sure seems that way. I don't really see how this military
| action is justified from a US perspective. Or even from an
| Israeli one. The most likely justification is that the
| leadership of the US and Israel are a little bit unhinged and
| want a war to distract from domestic issues.
| ccppurcell wrote:
| Not only is it unjustified, attacking during a negotiation
| seriously undermines future negotiations. This is a massive
| self face punching exercise.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Was there really a negotiation? It seems like US is giving
| them an ultimatum, stop nuclear enrichment and ballistic
| missile production or well hit you
| yard2010 wrote:
| "This is America, you can always cut a deal"
|
| - Dutch
| moogly wrote:
| Israel has even killed a Hamas _negotiator_ in 2024 during
| deliberations, and attempted to kill another one in 2025.
| fennecbutt wrote:
| I mean they literally shot a child and watched him bleed
| to death while creating a wall to prevent an ambulance
| getting to him soooo.
|
| But for some reason the Western world only sees the evil
| things Hamas does and handwaves IDF.
|
| They're both evil.
|
| Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqwv9vvzx9o
|
| Though I suppose you could say he's lying, it's staged
| etc. In the same way that the religious attribute every
| good thing to their god and every bad thing to their
| devil.
| yard2010 wrote:
| Don't fool yourself and others, attacking during
| negotiation is part of the negotiation.
| Matl wrote:
| Netanjahu is old and wants to secure his 'legacy' by being
| credited for dismantling Iran, knowing Trump will back him
| both because he's been fed BS and because the Israelis have
| enough kompromat to sink him. There's no 'rational'
| justification for this attack, only madness and huge egos.
| sensanaty wrote:
| What kompromat would even affect Trump at this point? He's
| been proven to be deep in bed with a literal pedophilic
| cabal of elites, what on Earth else could they have on this
| guy that would affect anything?
| Matl wrote:
| A literal video of him doing what most of us think he
| likely did with this pedophilic cabal of elites could
| likely still do some damage.
|
| Or perhaps there's still worse things we cannot imagine?
| With these people, one can never be too sure.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| Well, it's plausibly justified because the US considers a
| strong regional ally like Israel a valuable asset to have in
| the Middle East and if Israel is a regional hegemon [1] then
| all the better.
|
| There have been many arguments that the US' support of Israel
| goes against US interests [2], but that really makes no
| sense. It's not just Trump who has to be convinced to start a
| war for Israel, it's the entire defense establishment in the
| US.
|
| And also in Israel. If fighting half a dozen wars all at once
| was really that bad for Israel, surely, someone would have
| put a stop in it.
|
| Surely.
|
| _____________
|
| [1] Got that term from J. Mearsheimer, if you were wondering.
|
| [2] Particularly the Tucker Carlson - Judge Napolitano - Col.
| Daniel Davies continuum of mostly conservative podcast hosts.
| Or those are the ones I follow closely anyway. They're all
| convinced it's all "because of the lobby".
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| Why is Israel a valuable asset?
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| careful, you might get flagged by the self appointed hackernews
| mods
| yonisto wrote:
| Nope. In Jerusalem.
| TurdF3rguson wrote:
| Israel is the tip of the USA spear. We've seen this already,
| this should come as no surprise.
| praptak wrote:
| Oh, it's not only Israel. It's also a powerful distraction from
| the Epstein files.
| rixed wrote:
| Wait, weren't the Epstein files a distraction from war
| operations?
| praptak wrote:
| I don't believe one is needed. USians seem ok with wars.
| The last one which caused problems also had a forced
| conscription.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| its an Ouroboros of distractions.
| idop wrote:
| No. They're made in Virginia and broadcast to proxies around
| the world.
|
| Seriously, I'm constantly amazed by how oblivious some
| Americans are. You got it all backwards.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| This doesn't even benefit Israel, it benefits a bunch of power-
| hungry sociopaths in Israel.
| kakadu wrote:
| I am not convinced that Israel is such an important ally.
|
| I suspect a fourth column.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| Israel is not an ally, it's the puppet. What is happening is
| what the Anglo-Americans want.
| hjkl0 wrote:
| What makes you think it suits Israel? There is only one person
| here it serves
| joshrw wrote:
| Always have been.
| gethly wrote:
| Iran FTW
| upmind wrote:
| How did the US justify this?
| apexalpha wrote:
| They stopped doing that, really.
|
| You might've missed it but the "department of defense" is now
| "department of war'.
| lll-o-lll wrote:
| The way they justify everything in the modern time.
|
| "The strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must."
|
| If you are in the US, pray that you are never weak.
| joshrw wrote:
| Weapons of mass destruction, as usual.
| chrisjj wrote:
| Here is their attempt: https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-
| trump-address-f662a4f3378...
| xdennis wrote:
| 1. Iranians protested.
|
| 2. Islamists massacred them.
|
| 3. Trump said "help is on its way" (
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/13/trump-promises...
| )
|
| 4. Now is the help.
|
| ---
|
| Trump also said that when he says things he means them, unlike
| Obama's red lines in Syria (his words). When he said that, it
| was pretty clear he couldn't back off of attacking Iran.
|
| I assume it took so long because he's going for regime change,
| not just a few bombings. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it took the
| US 5 months to launch a counter-invasion (mostly because of
| coalition building).
| manyaoman wrote:
| I take this as a confirmation that more "nuclear material" i.e.
| unpublished Epstein files still exist.
| Schmerika wrote:
| There's at least 14TB of unpublished files left.
|
| And that's only the ones the FBI didn't "somehow" fail to
| collect.
| Schmerika wrote:
| There's at least 14TB of unpublished files left. A little under
| half of the 6 million documents.
|
| And that's only the ones the FBI didn't "somehow" fail to
| collect.
| m00dy wrote:
| This is the beginning of 3rd world war.
| tome wrote:
| Would you be willing to back up that claim with money on a
| prediction market?
| rationalist wrote:
| It's very subjective, not appropriate for a prediction
| market.
| Bender wrote:
| Yup, up to those that write the history books.
| tome wrote:
| Then it's also not a very useful claim to make on Hacker
| News.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| What makes you think that?
| dodgerdan wrote:
| 3 days ago this was in the news:
|
| > "Epstein files: DOJ withheld documents about claim Trump
| sexually abused minor"
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/24/epstein-trump-doj-garcia.htm...
|
| Will it even make a single newspaper or talk show this weekend?
| halflife wrote:
| Do you people seriously think that planning such a large scale
| operation can take 3 days?
| notenlish wrote:
| This is why we can't have nice things.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| USA can't stop engaging in wars no? Now food prices are gonna go
| up because gas prices will go up. Or all prices will go up.
| Zealotux wrote:
| >USA can't stop engaging in wars no?
|
| Eisenhower explained why in his farewell address.
| makingstuffs wrote:
| I really do not even want to understand the mental gymnastics
| which one has to undertake to justify the actions of the US and
| Israel in recent years.
|
| Nor do I even know how to begin to grasp the enablement displayed
| by Europe as a whole. People constantly cite China's "human
| rights abuses" (which seem to pale in comparison to all this) and
| rightly so, but continue to enable this blood thirsty and power
| hungry tag team to indulge in flagrant abuses of international
| law and general morality.
|
| This is a sad day for level headed and empathetic humans across
| the globe. At which point do we accept that WW3 began quite a
| while ago? Because it sure as shit did.
|
| Edit: fully expect this to be downvoted to oblivion but it's my
| truth.
| amunozo wrote:
| There is a curious cognitive dissonance in which people think
| is somehow more morally correct to do human rights abuses
| abroad than at home. The US is doing both currently, though.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| To add to this: anyone who _still_ does not see that Israel is
| by and far the most dangerous rogue state in the region is (at
| best) blinded by propaganda.
|
| Iran has repeatedly demonstrated restraint and pragmatism
| throughout these aggressions on their sovereignty, starting
| with Israel's strike on their consulate in Damascus.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| There is no need to gymnastics. Iran materially supports
| russian war against Ukraine.
| wewxjfq wrote:
| Very level headed and empathetic to go and claim that 50
| countries just lost their right to criticize China because US
| and Israel are fighting Iran. Trolls having their priorities
| straight!
| Revanche1367 wrote:
| He did not make that claim and even said criticism of China's
| abuses is warranted. Zionist shill.
| throwaway637372 wrote:
| US president can be democrat or republican, republicans can
| control the Senate or the House, or the democrats can control the
| Senate or the House - regardless of who is in power, Israel's
| interests by US are always met. US can wreck havoc on close
| relations and ties with Europe, Canada, etc. - but relation to
| Israel never changes. You can oblivious to all this, but the
| truth is: Israel de facto controls the US.
| arunabha wrote:
| Ben Franklin was asked what kind of govt would the newly formed
| United States have. He was sadly right when he replied 'A
| republic, if you can keep it'
|
| One of the (many) pretexts for the war, at least from Trump seems
| to be that Iran 'interfered' in US elections. From the Washington
| post
|
| 'President Donald Trump shared an article about Iran seeking to
| interfere in U.S. elections on his Truth Social account a couple
| of hours after U.S. strikes began in Iran early Saturday.
|
| "Iran tried to interfere in 2020, 2024 elections to stop Trump,
| and now faces renewed war with United States," the post read,
| with a link to a piece from Just the News, a conservative website
| from which Trump frequently shares articles. Shortly after, the
| president posted another article from the site, albeit unrelated
| to Iran; it was about the Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor Fani
| T. Willis.'
|
| Does the US even have a functioning Congress left? Who will even
| believe such a preposterous lie? Even the most die hard MAGA
| supporter will find it hard to believe this fabrication.
|
| It's like Trump doesn't feel the need to even maintain the fig
| leaf of a causus belli. He must truly feel that he is now the
| king of the United States to be so emboldened.
| chrisjj wrote:
| /sought/ to interfere.
|
| See Stephen Fry on attempted chemistry.
| mdni007 wrote:
| Why does HN continue to delete all comments against this?
| notenlish wrote:
| Do you have any proof for this?
| Bender wrote:
| Enable "show dead" in your profile to see things that get
| flagged to oblivion and that action is by the user-base not
| moderators.
| blks wrote:
| So another war of aggression by Israel.
| 0x600613 wrote:
| 2 countries with the best war technologies on earth must work
| together to have a war with embargod-country-for-decades. And
| those 2 counties are founder of Board of Peace.
| SirFatty wrote:
| yes, yes. Poor Iran.
| Schmerika wrote:
| Yes. Poor Iran.
|
| Because America and Israel.
| dijit wrote:
| Iran are the good guys?
|
| What topsy-turvy land have I wandered into?
|
| They've funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis for
| decades. They've assassinated dissidents on foreign soil.
| They sentence people to death for apostasy and flog women
| for not wearing hijab correctly.
|
| The sanctions aren't about race. They're about behaviour.
| bigyabai wrote:
| There are no "good guys" in real-life. If you as an
| individual revile proxy conflict, assassination of
| dissidents abroad, torture and summary execution, then
| it's hard to stand on the American soapbox and demand
| change. Many Iranians still remember SAVAK, and are told
| stories of the last time they tried nationalizing their
| resources.
|
| The US doesn't _need_ an interventionist policy with Iran
| any more than we need to invade North Korea. Israel needs
| it though, and their entire strategy is to risk American
| lives for their meaningless expansion campaign.
| tredre3 wrote:
| > Iran are the good guys?
|
| Nobody said that. But they are a sovereign country that
| did not attack America. Bombing them because you find
| their internal politics distasteful is appalling, to say
| the least.
| danielxt wrote:
| > find their internal politics distasteful is appalling
|
| you call their official slogan "Death to America, Death
| to Israel" - distasteful internal politics?
| NickC25 wrote:
| >Iran are the good guys?
|
| No. But they are a sovereign nation who didn't directly
| bomb the US or its allies.
|
| >They've funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis for
| decades. They've assassinated dissidents on foreign soil.
| They sentence people to death for apostasy and flog women
| for not wearing hijab correctly.
|
| You want to know who the US has funded? You want to know
| who Israel has funded?
|
| I mean, shit, the US took out Iran's democratically
| elected government in the 1970s and was a huge fan of the
| Mullahs because they let us steal Iranian oil. The same
| secular Iranian government that was quite literally the
| first middle eastern country to recognize the existence
| of Israel, and was a leading secular state in a region of
| ass-backwards religious nutcases.
|
| Israel has refused to acknowledge the obvious existence
| of its nuclear weapons program while Iran is a full
| member of the IAEA and allows for full international
| inspection of its uranium facilities.
|
| Fuck, the Israelis engage in massive blackmailing
| operations of their own "allies" (see Epstien, Jeffrey) ,
| attack their own "allies" (see USS Liberty attack), and
| have tried to goad its "allies" into carrying out attacks
| on their behalf. They are a tiny bully that starts shit
| they cannot handle themselves, and American lives are
| sacrificed because of it.
| harimau777 wrote:
| My greater concern is the people of Iran. Especially since
| Iran has conscription so the people who end up dieing in a
| war didn't even consent to being made soldiers.
| baxtr wrote:
| Maybe the Iranian people would be thrilled to get some
| weapons.
| frmersdog wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| http://lifegoesonintehran.com/
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _2 countries with the best war technologies on earth must
| work together to have a war with embargod-country-for-decades_
|
| It gives us a regional coalition partner. That's never a bad
| thing, regardless of circumstances.
| propagandist wrote:
| I'd say being an apartheid state and conducting a live-
| streamed genocide could possibly be a minor issue. Just a PR
| issue mind, Lord knows we've given up on our souls long ago.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _conducting a live-streamed genocide_
|
| For what it's worth, I think the American activists on this
| issue bungled the messaging to disastrous effect (in the
| same way we bungled criminal-justice reform). It's a
| saturated issue with low political salience outside a
| specific (and increasingly constrained) demographic.
|
| A win in Iran will be a short-term boost, in America and in
| Israel. Then we'll go back to being pissed about rising
| prices.
| propagandist wrote:
| Sure, it's the activists' fault. Not the people who
| committed this genocide in our government.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| The activism worked. Polling shows that support for
| Israel is dwindling especially among the younger
| population.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| When it comes to Israel, polling was always lower in
| younger populations, although yes - the trend worsened.
|
| Israel chose to trade popularity for having real
| geopolitical gains on the ground. Popularity could be won
| back later, but removing the Iranian ring of fire around
| it is a real and tangible achievement that would last
| decades and change the Middle East.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| You make it sound as if Israel merely made a few PR
| blunders.. They've killed 10s of thousands of Palestinian
| children.
|
| This is not salvageable without justice and
| accountability.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > You make it sound as if Israel merely made a few PR
| blunders.. They've killed 10s of thousands of Palestinian
| children.
|
| > This is not salvageable without justice and
| accountability.
|
| Do Palestinians have to be held accountable for their
| actions?
| Cyph0n wrote:
| No. Any other questions, or do you want to just continue
| feigning interest in having an actual conversation?
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > No. Any other questions, or do you want to just
| continue feigning interest in having an actual
| conversation?
|
| This is an actual question. It seems to me that you only
| care about Arabs dying. Jews can die left and right in
| the hands of Arabs and you won't blink an eye. Am I
| correct?
|
| I just want to clarify it for others who reads your
| comments to see.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| Assume whatever helps you move on from replying to me. I
| recognize your username btw.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| Your silence speaks louder than a 1000 words.
| moxifly7 wrote:
| About a third of American Jews now agree that Israel is
| an apartheid state and committing genocide against
| Palestinians.
|
| It remains to be seen what impact this will have, but it
| will certainly impact the ability for everyone to claim
| that criticism of Israel and sympathy for Palestinians is
| motivated by antisemitism.
|
| The democrats lost the last election in part because of
| their stance on Israel.
|
| With a bit of luck this could lead to a shift in policy
| within a generation.
| thrance wrote:
| American "activists" (didn't know being anti-genocide was
| a fringe belief but here we are) clearly won the
| narrative. Most Americans now oppose what Israel is doing
| in Gaza and want all support to this country to stop
| ASAP. This support for Israel cost Harris the election,
| as shown in their latest post-mortem of the 2024
| election, and is making Trump and his administration ever
| more unpopular.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > It gives us a regional coalition partner. That's never a
| bad thing, regardless of circumstances.
|
| You missed the point. The fact that it requires two of them
| to gang up on Iran says something about how capable Iran is
| in defending itself.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| No it doesn't. No military power, however overpowered
| compared to its opponents, will ever say no to an even more
| unfair beatdown.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I don't think they can accomplish their goal even with
| that. I will be very surprised by regime change.
| dmix wrote:
| Iran was likely going to do that themselves by the
| massive inflation they caused through reckless financial
| policies such as Venezuelan style price controls. Russia
| is managed to weather sanctions decently, Iran's economic
| leadership is far more incompetent despite being a petrol
| state. Even in Tehran they can't get enough water because
| of the failure of infrastructure and planning (despite
| plenty of money being available for certain failed
| regional military projects).
|
| There was a study showing almost every revolution
| happened not because of ideology but over the price of
| bread.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > There was a study showing almost every revolution
| happened not because of ideology but over the price of
| bread.
|
| His name was Marx. ;)
|
| Yeah. We'll see. Under what conditions will you consider
| yourself right or wrong? My prediction is after killing a
| few more heads of state, disabling some more striking
| capability that they'll back off under pressure from the
| Arab states. Trump will declare it as a victory
| regardless of what happens and everyone will forget about
| it. Iran will eventually rebuild itself as it just did,
| but this time it will take longer (Trump even said that
| himself, contradicting himself earlier).
| croes wrote:
| To obliterate a nuclear program that they claimed was totally
| obliterated last year
| NickC25 wrote:
| while repeating the claim that Iran is a week from having a
| bomb....the same claim the nutty yahoo has made for nearly 3
| decades now.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Bored of Peace.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Well. Iran gets a lot of weapons from Russia which spends a
| whole lot of their GDP producing weaponry.
| NewsaHackO wrote:
| Come on, you haven't lived if you were a high school senior and
| didn't stuff a bunch of middle schoolers in lockers with your
| bros for fun.
| gpt5 wrote:
| The reason it is hard is not due to a power balance. Both of
| those countries could have sent nukes with minimal efforts.
|
| But their goal is targeted and precise attacks, that
| effectively destroy targets based on specific, and high quality
| intelligence.
|
| The other part is that defense against missiles is
| significantly harder and more expensive than sending missiles.
| Iran, while relatively poor, has dedicated a significant part
| of its economy for missile development and production.
| tootie wrote:
| > their goal is targeted and precise attacks
|
| Day one and they've already bombed a school and killed dozens
| of children. The goals, strategy and tactics have not been
| clearly communicated. You can pray they are using high
| quality intelligence, but history tells us they are not at
| all concerned with collateral damage. They likely want to
| degrade Iran's military capabilities, but they also want them
| cowed and bleeding.
| gpt5 wrote:
| You are relying on unreliable news sources, the strikes are
| incredibly precise. See the aerial photo of Khamenei's
| residence that was bombed [1]. You can see how the
| surrounding area remains surprisingly clean in face of the
| utter destruction in the middle.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/war/comments/1rh2f41/the_residence
| _...
| papaver-somnamb wrote:
| I recall someone (name escapes me at the moment) defining WW3 as
| ignition in 5 flashpoints between belligerent groupings: -
| Eastern Africa esp. Sudan, which we all nearly universally ignore
| - Israel Iran - Russia and a neighbor which we know today is
| Ukraine - Pakistan Afghanistan India - China Taiwan Plus Plus
|
| Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were
| IIRC: Contained conflagration, short targeted exchanges,
| probability of contamination low, material possibility of nuclear
| escalation. Case in point: North Korea developed nukes without
| being invaded, and now that they have nukes, other countries are
| watching and seeing that NK won't be invaded. What lesson do
| those other countries draw? And what of a world in which many
| potential belligerents hold nukes? Hiroshima weeps.
|
| I'd like to add an important attribute here: The revolution will
| be live-streamed, more-or-less. And essentially none of us will
| know the truth, even the reasons. I predict this fact will not
| distress many people, such is the state of humanity.
|
| So to the 7 or so decades of stability we and our ancestors
| enjoyed, here's looking at you, going down me. But Brettonwoods
| serves the present the least of any time since its creation. Case
| in point, w.r.t. eastern Africa, the geopolitical bounds of those
| ~4 countries seems likely meld to a degree. If we are indeed
| heading into WW3, I expect the world map to be redrawn
| afterwards, and the only lessons learned is how to win better in
| future.
|
| And if we are, while disgruntled old geriatrics go at each others
| throats via their youthful proxies, I greatly prefer the nukes
| rust in peace.
|
| Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a
| single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.'
| Aspiration, you gotta take care man, it just might kill ya.
| shevy-java wrote:
| First, I don't think this leads to WW3 although I would agree
| with you that there is a general global tendency towards
| escalation. Still, I think we can not call this WW3 and I am
| not 100% certain this is a build-up to WW3 either.
|
| As for North Korea: I think the situation is not solely about
| North Korea itself but China. China is kind of acting as
| protective proxy here. I don't see North Korea as primary
| problem to the USA, but to South Korea and Japan. Both really
| should get nukes. Taiwan too, though mainland China would
| probably invade when it thinks Taiwan is about to have nukes;
| then again China already committed to invasion - this is the
| whole point of having a dictator like Xi in charge now.
|
| The situation Russia is in is interesting, because even though
| they are stronger than Ukraine, Ukraine managed to stop or
| delay Russia, which is a huge feat, even with support. As Putin
| does not want to stop, and Trump is supporting him (agent
| Krasnov theory applies), I think this has escalation potential.
| Putin is killing civilians in Ukraine daily - I think he does
| that because he already committed to further escalation against
| all Europeans. So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but
| european politicians are totally lame - see Merz "we will never
| have nukes". Basically he wants to be abused by Putin here.
| DivingForGold wrote:
| Taiwan needs nukes on low flying hypersonic cruise missles
| now. Seems that would halt Chinese aggression.
| anonymous_user9 wrote:
| > So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european
| politicians are totally lame
|
| Are France's 240 submarines-launched thermonuclear ballistic
| missiles not adequate? Despite the need for security, nuclear
| proliferation is extremely bad. It seems ideal for France
| continue to maintain their nuclear weapons while the rest of
| Europe keeps their hands clean.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Say what you want about France, but their military has
| generally been extremely pragmatic and forward thinking*.
|
| They've seen the writing on the wall about independent
| nukes for decades.
|
| * WWII front collapse being more of a political failure
| than a military one: politicians dictating unachievable
| military strategies)
| Rapzid wrote:
| China won't invade Taiwan because it would destroy their
| economy and thus their country. Would wreck the entire world
| economy and turn every country against them.
|
| It's nice nationalistic rhetoric, but there is literally no
| upside for them.
| asah wrote:
| hmmm - but is it really "world war" 3 if it's a bunch of
| localized conflicts?
|
| I'm a little disappointed that the internet and social media
| had little impact on universal disclosure about geopolitical
| matters. My sense is that governments updated their playbooks
| to both defend against them (e.g. minimize leaking) and
| leverage them (e.g. bury inconvenient information with
| propaganda). By comparison, I'm more hopeful about cellphones
| and bodycams generally reducing excessive police violence and
| discrimination (emphasis on "reduce").
|
| prediction: the nuclear threat will look quaint compared with
| disposable million-drone swarms on land and in the air,
| targeting anything remotely interesting via onboard AI.
| throwpoaster wrote:
| "A bunch of localized conflicts" is what contemporaries
| thought WWII was before people realized the larger pattern.
| AreShoesFeet000 wrote:
| The revolution will be notably public, but not live-streamed.
| It will come as a swift and decisive reaction to a shock-and-
| awe deployment that will de-stabilize the state apparatus of a
| big nation outside of the "west". The movement will be
| initially localized but it will spread until a perimeter of
| containment is setup around developed nations. Much more will
| come after.
| xg15 wrote:
| > _And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the
| reasons._
|
| Maybe not in the details, but the general geopolitical "axes"
| (USA/the "West" vs China/Russia/BRICS/"Global South"/etc) have
| become increasingly obvious in the last years. And so far, most
| of the recent conflicts fit pretty neatly into that pattern.
|
| Of course there are more things running in parallel, like the
| general shift to the right, Trump in the US, the specific
| situation with Israel/Palestine, the emergence of AI, etc.
|
| But I don't see why any of this needs any other "grand secret
| cause" to explain the current conflicts.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| BRICS is Russia wishing that China (much less Brazil, Egypt,
| Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and the United Arab
| Emirates) were aligned to its interests.
|
| A more accurate description of the way the world is trending:
|
| US / UK / Europe / Japan / South Korea (still tied by
| defense, if push really comes to shove) vs Russia vs China vs
| Non-Aligned Nations (India, Indonesia, Egypt, Bangladesh,
| Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc.)
|
| And historically (1960s), in a multi-polar world, middle
| powers are best served by being ambiguously aligned to force
| advantageous courting by major powers.
| xg15 wrote:
| Then have a look who is supporting whom with weapons, which
| militaries are running maneuvers together, who is
| cooperating - or not cooperating - economically, who is
| visiting each others' summits, etc.
|
| It's true that many countries are trying to have
| relationship with both sides or are trying to keep all
| options open - which is the most reasonable strategy, I
| think - but there are still two power centers emerging
| between which those countries are aligning themselves.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > but there are still two power centers emerging
|
| Yes. There is US and Israel in one side, and countries
| trying to maintain relationships with everybody on the
| other.
|
| The most ridiculous thing about people claiming that
| BRICS is a military pole is that it has both India and
| China right there in the name. I don't know if you
| noticed, but those two almost got in an open war just in
| the last 6 months.
| Rapzid wrote:
| It's the West vs China with Russia as an also-ran with
| nukes now unfortunately.
|
| Otherwise you've got some regional issues which is where
| Iran falls. None of the major players in the region like
| them, even if they would prefer not to have a conflict
| they'd be pretty stoked if the volatile regime was gone.
|
| Most of those non-aligned nations are pretty much aligned
| with the west. Indonesia is absolutely aligned with the
| USA and the USA it. They are the "Indo" in Indo-Pacific
| Strategy!
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Well, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea seem to have a
| (fairly loose) "alliance of convenience" at the moment.
| "The enemy of my enemy", more or less.
| jopsen wrote:
| Hmm, I'm not sure trading is an alliance.
|
| I doubt NK sent anything to Russia without payment in
| hard currency (gold).
| plaidfuji wrote:
| If this spreads into a broader conflict, it remains to be
| seen whether Europe sticks tightly with that block. They
| certainly won't align with Russia, but they may be tied so
| closely to China economically that they can't afford to be
| dragged into a direct conflict with them. I could see a
| situation where they try to remain non--aligned.
| jopsen wrote:
| Given that we now that to deploy troops to prevent the US
| from invading Greenland.
|
| I'd agree, it's not a given that the US can count on
| Europe in a conflict with China.
|
| But probably Europe wouldn't be trading with China or
| anything.
|
| It's just given the treatment of the US administration,
| the US probably can't build a volunteer coalition like I
| Iraq - unless there is an attack on US mainland.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars
| were IIRC_
|
| You're missing the commonalities, what defined world wars: the
| full might of industrial economies being dedicated to military
| campaigns.
|
| World War II's theatres' were incoherent-the Axis interests in
| _e.g._ China and the Pacific had basically zero stragegic
| overlap with Europe and North Africa. (The only parties having
| to consider a unified theatre being the USSR and USA.) But the
| entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North America was
| basically dedicated to (or extracted towards) making things
| that were reasonably expected to be destroyed within the year.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| _looks at Russia 's economy_
| bobthepanda wrote:
| the "world" part of world war is also important. pretty
| much every economy involved was at least undergoing heavy
| handed rationing of goods, encouraging people to donate
| scrap metal, etc.
|
| Russians are not under food rationing yet.
| testdelacc1 wrote:
| Here's hoping they feel the war in Moscow and St
| Petersburg this year. A bit of rationing wouldn't hurt
| them.
|
| More than the war, they'll feel the peace. More than 100%
| of the economic growth of the last few years has gone
| into war production, meaning the civilian economy has
| shrunk. When the weapons factories are scaled back the
| economy is going to hurt something fierce. Even
| Muscovites will notice.
|
| This is why Putin can't stop fighting. When the fighting
| stops Russia will face a reckoning. Better to postpone
| that day hoping that Europe runs out of steam.
| iso1631 wrote:
| British Empire was heavily involved in Europe, North Africa
| and South-East Asia. Events in India had great consequences
| on Europe
|
| The USSR on the other hand barely had any involvement in the
| Pacific theatre, entering in August 1945.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| The USSR had to carefully keep enough land forces in the
| Pacific region to deter a Japanese land invasion. (Remember
| that Japan controlled Manchukuo.) So, yes, the USSR had
| little involvement, and they had to be very careful to keep
| it from becoming an active front.
|
| See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
| (that was in 1939).
| jjfoooo4 wrote:
| > But the entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North
| America was basically dedicated to (or extracted towards)
| making things that were reasonably expected to be destroyed
| within the year.
|
| This is no longer necessary to inflict the catastrophic
| destruction we're really referring to when talking about a
| hypothetical WWIII
| datsci_est_2015 wrote:
| Their argument is that, by definition, it can't be a world
| war unless all economic surplus is dedicated to war
| purposes.
|
| I tend to agree with both of you, and that by extension, we
| will never see another world war unless society as we know
| it collapses significantly.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| Things have changed since I was a kid. We've gone from
| saturation bombing and dropping nukes as the big kahuna to
| being able to do point assassination strikes.
|
| Topical the Israelis just killed Khamenei.
| bcxdxc65 wrote:
| We are not heading into WW 3. Those old rich men you worry
| about have to pay a much higher price in cash for their
| illusions of control. And that reduces what harm and how long
| wars can run. Keep an eye on what the markets tell everyone on
| Monday.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| Check your thinking. Korea currently has a DMZ dividing it from
| a war that never really ended and was fought to a stalemate.
| Their nuclear program didn't result in military action because
| they currently have a gun to the head of every South Korean
| citizen and the backing of a large nuclear neighbour. Those are
| circumstances you can't easily recreate elsewhere.
| doubletwoyou wrote:
| Adding to your point, Seoul is visible from North Korea, and
| vice-versa, and likely has enough conventional artillery
| aimed at it that even without nukes an invasion would be Very
| Bad for the Korean people.
| leptons wrote:
| None of that would stop the current US administration from
| launching a sneak attack as we've seen several times in
| other countries. They simply do not care about
| consequences.
| 627467 wrote:
| What is the analogous example or your argument? Was iraq
| sitting next to a china-grade neighbor? Who's venezuela
| china?
| MarsIronPI wrote:
| I assume you mean Iran rather than Iraq, but your point
| still stands.
| jmward01 wrote:
| North Korea is in such poor shape that they probably can't
| maintain much of the equipment much less keep the personnel
| trained and ready to use it effectively. Not a reason to go
| to war, but the threat to Soul and SK in general is likely
| massively overstated.
|
| I think the strategic rational for unification completely
| swapped about 20 years ago. Up until the early 2000s it was
| likely in South Korea's, and the US's, interest to find a
| way to topple NK and unify the peninsula. The two
| populations had blood ties and common culture.
| Technologically the gap was growing but still reasonable.
| It would have been close to an east/west Germany type of
| situation where unification took effort but ultimately was
| clearly beneficial. China (and Russia) would have been
| losers in that unification would have brought a western
| friendly government even closer to their border.
| Additionally, NK still had a chance of re-energizing and
| becoming a real threat to SK.
|
| Now however NK is in such bad shape that unification would
| be traumatic. South Korea would take on a problem of epic
| proportions, caring for and bringing a population of that
| size back into the broader world would be exceptionally
| costly and definitely not guaranteed to end well, possibly
| destabilizing SK in the process. Their cultures have grown
| apart making it hard for them to understand each other. The
| blood ties are not really there anymore. China and Russia
| would likely be the winners in that everyone sees NK as
| crazy and anyone helping them is hurting the world so they
| could get rid of that baggage. China especially would gain
| by having rail access to massive shipping assets to deliver
| goods even cheaper to the world. Finally, the US would
| loose a major rationale for stationing forces that close to
| China. They could, rightfully, say that NK isn't a threat
| and the massive US assets in South Korea and Japan should
| be drawn down.
| fakedang wrote:
| The only way unification can ever happen will be with
| Chinese blessing, with or without democracy. That would
| mean a full exit of US forces from the peninsula, and
| substantial pandering to the CCP and influence in Seoul.
| Which isn't that far off a thought honestly - for the
| most part, Korea was a tributary of China. With rapidly
| changing demographics and economic heft in both
| countries, it's even more likely SK will gravitate
| towards China, to the point that the Chinese will find
| more persuasion in unification and predictability.
| jmward01 wrote:
| All probably close to correct. I wasn't arguing that
| unification would, or should, happen (especially by
| force). I was arguing that the strategic value to China,
| SK, the west, etc have flipped as well as the actual
| capabilities of NK are likely vastly overstated.
| jopsen wrote:
| > North Korea is in such poor shape that they probably
| can't maintain much of the equipment
|
| Sadly we know from events in Ukraine that NK artillery
| works and that they have plenty of it. Yes, it's poor
| quality, but far from harmless.
|
| Also to be clear: artillery is not exactly rocket
| science. They idea that NK doesn't have huge stockpiles
| is ludicrous.
| jmward01 wrote:
| It takes more than stockpiles of shells to be able to use
| it and maintain offensive positions capable of causing
| harm. From the reports I have seen NK military in Ukraine
| has been mostly cannon fodder and they are very
| untrained. That being said, joining the war effort in
| Ukraine is likely increasing their readiness.
| ericmay wrote:
| Right... shells age. They blow up in the barrel, things
| like that. Maybe they even _intentionally_ blow up in the
| barrel. Not that I would suggest sabotage. There 's no
| way South Korean intelligence could possibly infiltrate
| North Korea ;)
|
| But even so, if there was a serious threat of war, which
| is unlikely because China would stop North Korea, the US
| would place assets in the region and as we got close to a
| confrontation the US and South Korea (and as things are
| looking, probably Japan) would begin an aerial and
| missile bombardment to destroy in place North Korean
| offensive capabilities. Some would get through of course,
| perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of South Korean
| casualties, but in the context of a conventional war
| North Korea's capabilities would be quickly overwhelmed,
| at least in my opinion.
|
| But honestly, the current status quo works pretty well
| for everyone except the people of North Korea, but
| there's not much we can do. It's a tragedy and the blame
| for that falls squarely on the Soviet Union and Chinese
| Communist Party.
| I-M-S wrote:
| Isn't artillery precisely rocket science?
| iwontberude wrote:
| Another fun trivia: Seoul and Pyongyang are closer than
| Washington DC (Union) and Richmond VA (Confederacy) by a
| considerable margin.
| petre wrote:
| The DPRK is a nuclear armed buffer state and shall remain so
| for the forseeable future.
| righthand wrote:
| "The revolution will be livestreamed" is not used correctly and
| not what "will be televised" means. You are using it in the
| opposite manner actually.
| throwpoaster wrote:
| Op made an evocative point but then immediately betrayed it.
|
| It is interesting to think about the difference of
| livestreaming versus television.
| M95D wrote:
| You can stop fighting. Nobody's going to livestream
| anything. The truth it too important to risk making it
| known/visible by accident.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| I'm surprised such a superstitious reply is so highly-upvoted.
| There's no "WW3" any more than there is time travel or blue
| smirfs. It's a hypothetical, but you're talking about it like
| it's an inevitability. That's just not logically-sound
| thinking.
| throwpoaster wrote:
| WWII, contemporaneously, was thought of as several small
| regional wars: "wow, that Hitler guy has started a bunch of
| small limited conflicts."
|
| It was only when one stood back to regard the whole picture
| that it became clear that something larger was happening.
|
| OP is making the same point.
| decimalenough wrote:
| When Hitler invaded Poland, it took all of two days for
| basically all of Europe to realize that they were about to
| replay the Great War (which we now call WW1).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_Wo
| r...
|
| Of course it took longer for it to blow up into a _truly_
| global war (Pearl Harbor etc), but a conflagration across
| Europe is hardly a "small regional war".
| throwpoaster wrote:
| Hitler attacked several countries before attacking
| Poland.
| shimman wrote:
| Declaring war is one thing, but if you look at how
| leaders actually responded it's another (notice the 8
| month gap from the declaration of war, into actual
| fighting). They were still willing to negotiate with
| Hitler, because most western leadership also wanted the
| communists to be destroyed and thought Hitler would do
| just that without attacking them. They were willing to
| push for this literally until the tanks were invading
| their streets.
|
| Once Hitler invaded France the "phoney war" turned into a
| real war. [1]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War
| foobarian wrote:
| > Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes
| from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.'
|
| Ah but this is where modern technology comes in! Social media,
| Tiktoks, video games, porn...
| HPsquared wrote:
| The great pacifier.
| mandeepj wrote:
| > 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to
| sit still in a room.'
|
| old men's*
| copx wrote:
| Alexander "the Great" (mass murderer) began his conquests at
| the age of 20 and had conquered the largest empire the world
| had ever seen at the age of 26.
|
| Hannibal was in his 20s when he lead the Carthagian campaign
| against Rome.
|
| Napoleon began at 26 and had conquered half of Europe at 35.
|
| War being a business of old men sending young men to die is a
| modern thing.
| rayiner wrote:
| What's missing here is the complex network of alliances that
| led to WWI. The Iranian regime has alienated virtually
| everyone, including many of its Muslim neighbors. Nor is the
| regime part of some overarching international movement, like
| the communist countries were. Who is going to lift a finger to
| help Iran?
|
| I'm not supportive of these strikes. Iranians created this
| government, and if they want to topple it they'll have to be
| the ones to do it, without foreign intervention.
| jopsen wrote:
| Agreed, nobody is going to help out Iran.
|
| If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit a
| US boat.
|
| That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China.
|
| As for Iranian leadership, they just need to dig deep and
| wait this out. I can't imagine they don't have plenty of
| hardened bunkers.
| anon7725 wrote:
| > If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit
| a US boat.
|
| > That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with
| China.
|
| The right kind of missiles hitting the right kind of boat
| could lead to a very grave escalation.
| petre wrote:
| > I'm not supportive of these strikes. Iranians created this
| government, and if they want to topple it they'll have to be
| the ones to do it, without foreign intervention.
|
| Well, foreign intervention kind of worked in Syria, Libya and
| Iraq after a few backstops, didn't it? All three countries
| reduced to rubble and virtually eliminated as threats to the
| US and Israel. Iran is next on the list, now that they're
| close to obtaing nukes. Let's not kid ourselves, they're not
| doing it for the Iranians, the're doing it for themselves.
| Regime change on their own terms, or if that isn't possible,
| yet another civil war.
| rayiner wrote:
| If they were meaningful threats to the U.S. it would be
| legitimate to eliminate them, without regard to Iranian
| sovereignty. It's not clear to me that was true.
| petre wrote:
| They're an existential threat to Israel and it also puts
| China's oil suppply chain under pressure as a bonus.
| Also, the US does absolutely not want them to get nukes.
| The regime is at its lowest popularity, so obviously this
| is the time to try and topple it. The problem is that it
| creates a power void ripe for terrorist factions to
| flourish in, as it was the case in Syria and Iraq.
| zugi wrote:
| Interestingly Iran had moderately good relations with Russia,
| to whom they sold drones, and China, to whom they sold oil.
| But indeed not enough for either to help defend Iran.
|
| With Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, the US is bottling up Russian
| and Chinese global influence into smaller regional influence.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| Another aspect of a WW3 is that people- pretty much ALL people
| everywhere- who have nothing to do with the war will find their
| lives threatened or completely changed by it.
|
| I'm less concerned about nuclear escalation than about
| biological escalation.
|
| It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes: you can
| only blow up big chunks of it, maybe take out enough power
| plants and supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or
| multi-century dark age, or maybe cause a nuclear winter,
| although the actual risk of that is unclear.
|
| Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can
| release something that is functionally the end of the human
| species.
|
| We currently have no real safeguards against this. If we ever
| have descendants, they'll think we were insane during this time
| period and they'll be right.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| > It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes
|
| what about bio weapons? smallpox in the americas, for an
| example of many at the page below.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi.
| ..
| kgermino wrote:
| Isn't that their entire point?
| smegger001 wrote:
| Smallpox, which the only remaining samples exists in a
| couple of secure facilities controled by superpowers for
| use making vaccinations in case they are wrong about their
| only being a few samples controled by superpowers. Everyone
| with an ounce of sense knows bioweapons infect both sides
| and nuetral parties who are no longer neutral once you
| infect them. It like mustard gas but worse no one other
| than suicidal terror groups want them and they dont have
| the facilities equipment samples or knowhow.
| NetMageSCW wrote:
| There's no chance a kit in a basement can produce a
| biological weapon that will be successful.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Oh? A lot of the old-style genetic coders got dumped on the
| market cheap. The sort of stuff a microbiologist could use
| to synthesize smallpox. The technique has been
| demonstrated, although on a harmless virus. The market has
| shifted to outsourcing to big companies (who carefully
| check every order against known dangers) that have much
| higher capital costs but much lower per-letter costs, but
| that didn't invalidate the old lab bench techniques.
| denkmoon wrote:
| Seeing what people can do with a home made wet lab on
| youtube, I'm not so sure
| runjake wrote:
| You've got me curious. Examples?
| M95D wrote:
| > a biological weapon that will be successful
|
| I think he meant one of these:
|
| 1) Biological agent, but not meant to be a weapon.
|
| 2) A biological weapon, but one that fails
| catastrophically.
| esseph wrote:
| Oh yeah?
|
| https://theconversation.com/an-illegal-bioweapons-lab-was-
| fo...
|
| https://abc30.com/post/illegal-reedley-biolab-connected-
| lab-...
|
| Here's a paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17154
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Disagree: Most people live in areas dependent on the supply
| chain. And when the supply chain gets disrupted they aren't
| going to go peacefully. And there will be enough mobility
| that areas that could be self-sufficient get hordes
| descending on them.
| zikduruqe wrote:
| You'd like this book -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Second_After
| paviva wrote:
| His French is so simple and yet, incredibly beautiful and
| elegant, in a way that I am not even able to express in words.
| Only Voltaire compares.
|
| "tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de
| ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre." -- "All the
| woe of man comes from one single thing only: not knowing how to
| remain at rest, in a room"
|
| In the same text, he follows with:
|
| "Le roi est environne de gens qui ne pensent qu'a divertir le
| roi, et a l'empecher de penser a lui. Car il est malheureux,
| tout roi qu'il est, s'il y pense."
|
| "The king is surrounded by people who think only of amusing the
| king and preventing him from thinking about himself. For he is
| unhappy, though he be king, if he thinks about it."
| hedayet wrote:
| Epstein files have more potent power in them than any nuclear
| arsenal.
|
| No way this many rich powerful people would go down without
| destroying at least half of the world.
| swingboy wrote:
| A mere 8 months ago, Trump and his cronies were saying that
| Iran's nuclear program was "totally obliterated" every chance
| they got.
| vkou wrote:
| 16 months ago, he was campaigning on no new wars.
|
| Presumably, what he meant was 'No, new wars!'
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I don't know why anyone even bothers with this anymore.
| Literally every single word that comes out of his mouth is a
| lie. It's actually staggering to think about. It's like he is
| incapable of doing anything that right, correct, or true.
| criddell wrote:
| New day, new talking points. Surely this isn't a surprise to
| you?
| TheCondor wrote:
| And perhaps more importantly, "Suggestions otherwise are fake
| news"
|
| https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...
| adverbly wrote:
| Well hopefully this is short, minimally lethal, and leads to
| regime change for all those involved.
| shevy-java wrote:
| Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam?
|
| I don't think any of these were short.
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| Desert Storm was short. The second Iraq War, the stupid one,
| was not.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Desert storm didn't attempt regime change. Iran is not
| currently invading anyone.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| I'm glad someone else remembers. Desert Storm was fast
| (kind of) because it had a limited objective: Repel an
| invading army from another nation. It did not lead to an
| invasion (long term) of Iraq. Comparing any war with the
| objective of regime change to Desert Storm reveals that
| the commenter is grossly ignorant of recent history (36
| years ago, it's not that far back to be so ignorant).
|
| Desert Storm also wasn't really fast, it led to
| containment operations lasting a bit over a decade in
| total, ending only when we decided to invade Iraq with
| the objective of regime change and nation building. And
| that one, predictably, turned into a quagmire.
| invader wrote:
| However, to be fair, Desert Storm hasn't resulted in regime
| change. The Coalition bombed the shit out of the Iraqi
| army, but never committed to the ground operation deep
| inside Iraq. And Saddam's regime survived until the next
| war.
|
| That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a
| dictatorship down with just aerial attacks - the ground
| component is also essential. Something tells me it is going
| to be the same here.
|
| Only a land operation or a total collapse of the
| government, with the armed police and military joining the
| opposition, can topple the Iranian regime.
| AbstractH24 wrote:
| Counterexanple would be Venezuela
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| What was the regime change there? The vice president is
| in charge.
| ericd wrote:
| Well, she started releasing lots of political prisoners.
| So it does seem like the regime acts a bit differently
| now?
| djeastm wrote:
| Are you sure? They removed one guy they didn't like but
| the regime remains.
| platinumrad wrote:
| Was Saddam's Iraq (post Desert Storm when he no longer
| had the ability to wage offensive war) really that bad
| compared to what came after?
| Marsymars wrote:
| You mean immediately post Desert Storm when this
| happened?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings
| marcosdumay wrote:
| For a large share of the population, yes, by a huge
| margin. For an even larger share, no, by a large margin.
|
| Both regimes were deeply racist.
|
| Anyway, I don't think that information entered on the US
| decision making in any way.
| datsci_est_2015 wrote:
| > That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a
| dictatorship down with just aerial attacks.
|
| This has been painfully obvious since aerial bombing
| became possible, but we've had so many generals and
| executives obsessed with the concept that it continues to
| be a core doctrine, like Kissinger and Curtis LeMay,
| neither of for whom I have anything but deep contempt.
| ponector wrote:
| This does not look like a smart one. A bit smarter would be
| to strike a month ago to support street protests.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| It would have confused the Iranians as the regime would
| then claim that the foreign military attacks prove that
| the protests are artificially engineered by the same
| foreign enemy with the support of the Shah. It would also
| mean the automatic imposition of martial law in Iran,
| thus making protests even more difficult to organise.
| torlok wrote:
| That's because Desert Storm was launched by people who
| remembered the Second World War. Current wars are started
| by draft dodgers.
| Zealotux wrote:
| >leads to regime change for all those involved
|
| Including for the U.S. and Israel?
| gambiting wrote:
| We can only hope.
| methyl wrote:
| It's possible
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Possible but unlikely. The midterms are going to get
| actually stolen by Republicans, 100%.
| Revanche1367 wrote:
| Pretty sure he chose his words carefully.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| I did not see the US butchering 30k protesters in 2 days.
|
| And no, stop your American exceptionalism, ICE is not the
| same.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Nah you just bully your allies and illegally tariff the
| entire world, no biggy
| tim333 wrote:
| True but a lot of people would like to see Netanyahu and
| Trump replaced with other leaders.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Protesters that took to the streets, according to what I
| read, because the US president said he would back them.
| Sounds like he led them to a slaughter to generate
| justification.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| Protests started way before Trumps tweet.
|
| Second, why are you legitimizing gunning down thousands
| of people?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I'm delegitimizing the US president saying things he
| can't back up, causing death, and getting the US into
| another war that the American people didn't ask for.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > I'm delegitimizing the US president
|
| No. You are saying that these people died because of
| Trump's tweet, and not because the IR goons gunned people
| on the streets. Seems to me that you place the fault on
| Trump, rather than on those who pulled the trigger.
| nullocator wrote:
| The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own
| citizens, slavery is the approach we went with A la the
| U.S. prison system.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own
| citizens, slavery is the approach we went with A la the
| U.S. prison system.
|
| I hate to break it to you, but US prisons, while maybe
| worse than Scandinavian ones, are on par with France, and
| way better than like 70% of the world.
|
| This is not a competition who has it worse. You can
| acknowledge terrible things that IR does without trying
| to portray yourself as a victim.
| nullocator wrote:
| You are conflating issues. As a foregone conclusion the
| U.S. bombing the sovereign citizens of Iran is acceptable
| to you, only afterwards are you and other's justifying
| this by cherry picking recent events. If Iran hadn't just
| killed protesters, it'd be because they were working on
| nukes, or because they've launched missiles across
| borders.
|
| You blind yourself to the dozens of countries around the
| world doing these things and worse every day while
| picking and choosing enemies that are acceptable for the
| United States to attack like al la carte menu items.
| Justifying those attacks is an after thought.
| runako wrote:
| > on par with France
|
| The US per-capita incarceration rate is ~5x that of
| France.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| We killed far more Indigenous Americans than that. I
| agree with you on the prison system though.
| danny_codes wrote:
| I mean we just killed a bunch of children. So give it a bit
| of time I'm sure we can get those numbers up.
|
| Trump is the kind of person who would kill protestors to
| stay in power. We all know it
| waffleiron wrote:
| Have we forgotten the huge amount of covid deaths?
| qup wrote:
| Iran says we did.
|
| I saw a report that it was an errant Iranian missile.
| helaoban wrote:
| If you instigate a war you are responsible for all
| casualties.
| qup wrote:
| I can understand that viewpoint, but the stories are
| reading as if the school was targeted.
|
| I'll wait for some non-iranian confirmation.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| This is the Zionist modus operandi. Bomb civilian
| targets, then claim it's a "stray weapon". When the truth
| comes out, just ignore it. Zionists have been the
| aggressors in this region since Zionism was invented.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Your threshold for desiring regime change is the murder of
| 30,000 people?
| greggoB wrote:
| > And no, stop your American exceptionalism
|
| I don't think you intended to use this the way you did
| sosomoxie wrote:
| You didn't see anyone butchering 30k protesters in 2 days,
| because that didn't happen.
| scoofy wrote:
| It is difficult to instigate regime change for democratically
| elected governments.
|
| Iran has an unelected supreme leader.
|
| Israel has a large portion of its population completely
| disenfranchised.
|
| The US has a generally democratically elected government.
|
| If one of these governments is going to fall during military
| instabilities, it would most likely be Iran. The US will have
| significant regime change in November if polling holds.
| robin_reala wrote:
| The US is at "flawed democracy" in the Economist Democracy
| Index:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
| edgyquant wrote:
| The US is a republic with some democratic institutions,
| but the economists index isn't some platonic indicator
| that gets to define who's a good government and who
| isn't. Several of its higher ranking countries have
| outright banned extremely popular political parties in
| recent years.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| So is France.
| seszett wrote:
| And both have a similarly executive-centric form of
| government where the president and the majority party
| hold a disproportionate amount of power. Although the US
| is even worse than France on this regard as far as I
| know.
|
| I think it makes sense that both are categorised as
| flawed.
| groundzeros2015 wrote:
| democracy is a lower form of government in the ancient
| world
| Andrex wrote:
| I wonder who those critics were and what they were
| motivated by. (Rhetorical)
| groundzeros2015 wrote:
| If you want to talk about rhetoric look at the idea of a
| "democracy index" - a score suggesting a scientific
| approach for determining how good/free a nation is.
|
| We can play the "whose saying it game", or look at the
| arguments. Democracy is rule by the lowest people - and
| it's easily manipulated by the popular. Buying votes,
| focus on the carnal and immediate is a clear sign of
| democracy in decline.
| shykes wrote:
| > _Israel has a large portion of its population completely
| disenfranchised._
|
| Care to elaborate? As far as I know, this is false. All
| Israeli citizens 18 or older can vote; there are no voting
| restrictions based on race, religion, gender or property;
| prisoners can vote (unlike in many US states for example);
| permanent residents who are not citizens cannot vote in
| national elections but may vote in municipal elections (not
| the case in the US). National turnout ranges between 65%
| and 75%.
|
| Minorities are well represented: Arab and Druze citizens
| vote and have representation in the Knesset.
|
| I struggle to find any dimension in which your statement is
| correct.
| scoofy wrote:
| _Very obviously_ , I'm referring to the Palestinians in
| the "Palestinian Territories" being de facto governed by
| Israel and are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections.
| shykes wrote:
| There is nothing obvious about that statement. In fact
| it's catastrophically wrong.
|
| Palestinians in Gaza have been governed by Hamas since
| 2006. Before that, they had been governed by the
| Palestinian Authority (Fatah) since 1994.
|
| Palestinians in Judea and Samaria ("West bank") have been
| governed by the Palestinian Authority continuously since
| 1994, with the exception of Area C.
|
| Palestinians who live there are NOT "de facto governed"
| by Israel. They pay taxes to the Palestinian Authority;
| receive birth certificates, IDs, business licenses and
| social security payments from the P.A.; Go to schools,
| hospitals, courts, police stations and jails run by the
| P.A. And most importantly, they vote in elections run by
| the P.A. To say that they are "de facto governed" by
| Israel is ridiculous, and shows a lack of basic
| understanding of Israel and Palestine, and the conflict
| between them.
| squibonpig wrote:
| The person you're responding to said they were unable to
| vote in Israeli elections. You said "no, they're able to,
| uhh, not vote in the case of those under Hamas and
| they're able to vote in elections held by the Palestinian
| authority in the case of those in the west bank." I don't
| know a ton about this, but I don't believe the
| Palestinian authority elections are the same as the
| Israeli elections. As I understand it, the right to vote
| is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive
| enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining
| it.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| This is like saying Australians are disenfranchised
| because they can't vote in New Zealand elections. They're
| not governed by Israel in any meaningful way.
| hirako2000 wrote:
| Correction: It is like saying Australians can't vote in
| general elections after being pushed out of 75% of the
| territory, except a small percentage who are tolerated in
| the major land since they won't make a difference.
|
| The ostracized Aussies then can vote for their own
| leaders but will be blamed if they vote for the wrong
| ones and embargoed, regularly shot and even bombed from
| time to time to remind them who the place belongs to.
| shykes wrote:
| > _The person you 're responding to said they were unable
| to vote in Israeli elections._
|
| They said Palestinians are "a large portion of the
| Israeli population [that] is disenfranchised". That is a
| wrong statement. Palestinians are not part of the Israeli
| population and there is no expectation (on either side)
| that they would participate in Israeli elections. That
| issue has been largely settled by the Oslo framework in
| 1994.
|
| > _As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind
| a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to
| generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it._
|
| I'm not sure which elections you mean.
|
| - Israeli elections are for Israeli citizens. The 20% of
| Israelis who are Arab (sometimes loosely referred to as
| "Palestinians" as a loose synonym for "Arab living in
| former mandatory Palestine") can participate normally
|
| - Palestinians in the West Bank vote in Palestinian
| elections. ' not aware of any citizenship-related
| restrictions there. Possible issues might be: logistics
| of getting to polls because of Israeli checkpoints; or
| simply the absence of elections (PA hasn't held a
| national election since 2006, although there are
| municipal elections).
|
| - Specifically in East Jerusalem, on which Israeli claims
| sovereignty, Palestinians are classified as permanent
| residents of Israel. They may apply fot Israeli
| citizenship but that's probably a difficult process. As
| permanent residents they can vote in Israeli municipal
| elections, and as Palestinians they can vote in
| Palestinian national elections. But not being Israeli
| citizens they cannot vote in Israeli _national_
| elections. Perhaps that is what you 're referring to?
| datsci_est_2015 wrote:
| Counterpoint, Palestinians (many of whom were not alive
| in 2006, as they are children) are not exactly drenched
| in sovereignty at the moment.
| shykes wrote:
| I agree. But it is not Israel who is disenfranchising
| them - it is the Palestinian Authority (in West Bank) and
| Hamas (in Gaza).
| iw2rmb wrote:
| Nakba.
| scoofy wrote:
| I shouldn't even have to argue here. Access to the West
| Bank is controlled by Israel. That is de facto
| governance.
|
| At best the Palestinian Territories have "quasi-
| governmental control." I'm saying this as someone who
| isn't particularly pro-Palestine. Pretending that Israel
| isn't de facto the government of the Palestinian
| Territories is an unserious position.
|
| By de facto I mean explicitly _not_ de jure.
| shykes wrote:
| > _I shouldn't even have to argue here_
|
| If you don't like to argue, may I suggest not making
| controversial claims on controversial topics, in a place
| that encourages constructive debate?
|
| > _Access to the West Bank is controlled by Israel._
|
| That is mostly true. On the border with Jordan it is
| jointly controlled by Jordan and Israel (like most
| international borders).
|
| > _Pretending that Israel isn't de facto the government
| of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious position_
|
| I already explained in great detail the specific ways in
| which the Palestinian Territories are, in fact, governed
| by the Palestinian Authority. Taxation, elections,
| justice, police, education, healthcare, roads, sewers,
| business regulation, population register...
|
| So far your counter-argument is that Israel controls the
| border... and therefore Palestinians should vote in
| Israeli elections? Should they _also_ vote in Palestinian
| ejections? Or should the P.A. simply stop to exist? What
| point are you even making exactly?
|
| Calling me "unserious" doesn't make you automatically
| "serious", or right.
| scoofy wrote:
| You are confusing _de facto_ control and _de jure_
| control. That's why I'm arguing the _position_ is
| unserious. I don't know anything about you personally.
|
| You're making my point anyway, by conceding that the West
| Bank is effectively governed without representation in
| the governments controlling them.
| mtsolitary wrote:
| "The exception of Area C" is doing a lot of work in this
| argument. That's 61% of the territory of the West Bank
| ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a
| lot of work).
|
| To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto
| control, I will add: who controls the criminal court
| system? The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?
| The airspace? The ability to import and export goods? The
| roads? The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B? The
| decisions on building new settlements?
|
| Aside from the municipal things you mentioned, which in
| most places in the world are controlled by subnational
| entities, Israel is in de facto control of the lives and
| futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the
| sea", roughly half of them Jews and half of them Arabs,
| while only one of those groups has what anyone in the
| West could consider to be a normal existence.
| skywhopper wrote:
| Yes, but how many adults in land controlled by Israel are
| Israeli citizens?
| diordiderot wrote:
| > Israel has a large portion of its population completely
| disenfranchised.
|
| Does it?
| runako wrote:
| Consider the meanings of the following words:
|
| - sovereignty
|
| - border
|
| - population
|
| In that order, in the context of that region. Then
| consider their meanings in the context of (say) Canada.
| Consider how conventional applications of those terms are
| different for the two.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _It is difficult to instigate regime change for
| democratically elected governments._
|
| Just ask the folks who tried on January 6.
|
| > _The US will have significant regime change in November
| if polling holds._
|
| Assuming elections are held fairly. "Trump, seeking
| executive power over elections, is urged to declare
| emergency":
|
| * https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politic
| s/2...
| chinathrow wrote:
| You still believe the US regimes will allow elections as
| the they know it?
| pedalpete wrote:
| For democratically elected governments, doesn't regime
| change occur when any sitting politician loses the next
| election to their oponent?
|
| In my thinking regime change doesn't only refer to the
| complete collapse of the political system, just change in
| direction of the leaders.
| austin-cheney wrote:
| The US and Israel are elected governments, but that should
| certainly not presuppose democratic. The Roman Republic
| was, for example, fully elected but simultaneously it was
| intentionally autocratic to the elite. That is why it fell
| to a dictatorship which then increased the liberty and
| standards of the people.
|
| Democracy is the directness by which social participation
| equates to governance. The US is a federal republic with
| only two parties each bound by the same hostile funding
| system that benefits political contributions over the vote.
| That is far from democratic.
| michaelteter wrote:
| One can only dream.
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| He said what he said.
| FuckButtons wrote:
| Did he stutter?
| Bender wrote:
| _Well hopefully this is short, minimally lethal, and leads to
| regime change for all those involved._
|
| That would be ideal but unfortunately not likely. Nobody will
| like this comment but US ships are sitting ducks. They have
| minimal ammo per the pentagon and no oilers. No oilers and low
| ammo means no prolonged conflict. Only two of the ships are
| nuclear powered not counting submarines. Most of Iran's
| military and weapons are deep underground in a massive series
| of underground cities and tunnels. The US would require boots
| on the ground if they manage to breach the tunnel openings
| under the mountains. Should that fail the only viable targets
| are civilians and that won't win favor with anyone or
| accomplish anything.
|
| Iranian military could just wait it out if they wanted and then
| smoke Israel with supersonic missiles when the US leaves. Then
| we find out if Israel does have the nukes for the Samson option
| and that would result in the destruction of Israel. Iran's
| military could survive a nuclear strike but would have to clean
| up the fallout and I am not sure they could. Anyone not
| underground would likely get Acute Radiation Sickness and
| Cancer.
|
| On a positive note if the US can manage to get into the tunnels
| and send in enough munitions to start detonating the missile
| stockpile a chain reaction could crack all the concrete and
| collapse the tunnels. Satellite could detect which tunnel they
| try to evac from. They have less than 5 days to accomplish the
| chain reaction assuming this is the plan. From the videos I
| have seen the missiles are literally lined up like a double-
| strand fuse.
| tim333 wrote:
| The US military has seldom had problems with the blowing up
| the enemy bit. It's providing peace and stability after that
| happens where they tend to run into problems.
| Bender wrote:
| _The US military has seldom had problems with the blowing
| up the enemy bit._
|
| True however AFAIK they have never once been in this
| situation. Iran has spent 40+ years digging in and
| hunkering down. There were plenty of bunkers in WWII but
| this is a whole new setup, deeper under mountains, higher
| quality concrete _assuming they knew what they were doing_
| and dug in much deeper. To get this done in 5 days will be
| quite a feet. If they manage to do it I will be very
| impressed.
|
| _It 's providing peace and stability after that happens
| where they tend to run into problems._
|
| I think you are correct, what happens afterwards is usually
| a crap-fest. That would require a lot of boots on the
| ground to maintain stability for a very long time. It's not
| a great example but Korea is one such example. The payoff
| may be worth it if many of the Iranian funded terror groups
| are drained of resources as a result. Keeping boots on the
| ground for years will require funding from congress. Short
| of that it will just be another power vacuum filled by yet
| another zealot. The "if's" are doing a lot of heavy lifting
| in my comment.
| tim333 wrote:
| I think the crap-fest bit could go better with Iran. The
| Iranians are closer to European in culture than many
| places.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| They don't necessarily have to kill all the Iranian
| military, just suppress internal security enough to where
| the Iranian people came rise up in rebellion. It's hard
| for the IRGC to suppress widespread protests/rebellion if
| they're constantly stuck hiding in bunkers and tunnels.
|
| I imagine that's the strategy, anyway.
| scrollop wrote:
| What yt channel?
| Bender wrote:
| It's hard to find them now with all the AI slop being
| propped up but the best search terms may be "Iranian tunnel
| bunkers full of missiles". It is mostly YT channels run out
| of India. The oldest video I have seen was from CNN ten
| years ago. Iran will occasionally let journalists see their
| latest tunnel.
|
| This is a short one showing the 2nd to last generation of
| tunnels. [1] The latest tunnels are painted white including
| some that are under water. The older tunnels are not
| painted and one can see what appears to be reinforced
| concrete. When completed every tunnel is lined on both
| sides with missiles. This one [2] shows a couple
| generations of the tunnels. Found the old CNN video. [3]
|
| [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YQ1R7ZAKxE
| [video][1m]
|
| [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQtSPFrnKvo
| [video][5m25s]
|
| [3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Gu_TjmV0E
| [video][2m12s]
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| I can't imagine a world where the US military only has the
| logistics for a five day offensive.
| Bender wrote:
| It is odd. Trump has been receiving advice on Iran from
| General Dan Caine. It was suggested Caine warned of risks
| and limited munitions Trump refuted these stating Caine
| believes a conflict would be easily won. Other senior
| officers were in shock that he said this could be done. The
| pentagon objected due to the lack of ammo and oilers. This
| is one case where I wish he would listen to the senior
| officers with substantial experience instead of the guy
| that often agrees with him.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| There are some factors - this is an offensive being done to
| prop up Netanyahu's regime in Israel and distract the
| Americans from the Espstein files. The US thus means to
| keep it short-term. Moreover, in the middle-east, the
| American logistic chain runs through its Arab allies in the
| middle-east, and Iran has explicitly said that it will not
| hesitate to target its Arab neighbours, hosting American
| military bases, if the US attacks it. (And that's why it
| has retaliated against these American allies when it was
| attacked). Except for Saudi Arabia, these countries do not
| wish to get into a war with Iran for Israel, and have no
| interest in joining the war because Iran's missiles are
| quite precise and effective at short ranges (meaning they
| and their people will be facing the brunt of the war that
| they have no interest in). Thus, the US military is
| actually hampered because it cannot do anything without the
| host governments permission. (For example, during the last
| Iran attack, some allies did not allow the US to implement
| a nationwide jam of the GPS over its airspace). All this
| highlights the really hard balancing the US has to do to
| even agree to bomb Iran for a few days - one wrong move and
| the whole of middle-east can explode, and both the US and
| Israel will find itself on the receiving end as American
| and world public opinion turns against it.
| weatherlite wrote:
| I know you won't believe me here but dude you are absolutely
| full of shit
| Bender wrote:
| I clear it out with Cheesecake and Beer. I'll save some for
| you my friend.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| Yeah, the possibility of a regime collapse / change due to
| this military action is unlikely. The military goal seems to
| be to destroy Iran's military-industrial complexes to hamper
| its missile production. Note however that while Iran has
| potent missile capability, Iran's underground complexes where
| it is stored presents its own problems - in the absence of
| adequate air defence and an Air Force, its enemies can just
| bomb the openings of these underground complexes, making it
| very, very difficult for the Iranians to use its missile
| arsenals from there. (This is what Israel did the last time).
| As for the scenario you outlined, I highly doubt the US would
| be willing to send boots to the ground to blow up their
| missiles manually - urban warfare takes a heavy toll and I
| doubt if the Trump administration can withstand the criticism
| if body bags start coming home. Even the MAGA crowd has been
| unexceptionally hostile to Trump's attack on Israel.
| Bender wrote:
| _I highly doubt the US would be willing to send boots to
| the ground to blow up their missiles manually - urban
| warfare takes a heavy toll and I doubt if the Trump
| administration can withstand the criticism if body bags
| start coming home._
|
| You could be entirely right. Honestly I hope you are right.
| We lost far too many in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was
| probably just being cynical. I trust the decisions of the
| senior leaders in the military but their commander and
| chief tends to trust the wrong advice.
|
| The only possible correction I might add is the Air Force
| probably will not drop bombs but would have to fire
| missiles. The openings are on the sides of mountains and
| require horizontal access or I suppose incredibly massive
| bombs. Earth shattering bombs. Something closer to tactical
| nukes which the US has not stockpiled in a long time AFAIK.
| Bender wrote:
| [Update]: It seems my dear leader is hitting all the
| cities... [1] I am not OK with this. Save the handful of
| leaders and scientists for ground recon instead of whacking
| all the citizens. Take out the missiles first. Most of the
| military and religious leaders are under ground. Take out
| those underground complexes and Iran is yours.
|
| [1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/us-and-israel-
| attac...
| YZF wrote:
| I wouldn't trust Al Jazeera here (or anywhere else) but
| "hitting all cities" doesn't really say much. If the
| attacks are going after the IRGC and the Basij then
| presumably you need to go after them fairly broadly. If the
| attacks are going at ballistic missiles and drones the same
| applied. The question is what are the targets and what's
| the plan. I'm sure they're going after those complexes as
| well.
| arunabha wrote:
| > Take out those underground complexes and Iran is yours.
|
| And how exactly would Iran be 'ours' without boots on the
| ground in this scenario?
| franktankbank wrote:
| Won't there be boots on the ground? We already bombed their
| facilities and at the time they said best that bombs can do is
| fuck up the entrance to these tunnels.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| Based on previous American wars in the middle east wouldn't you
| say that's unlikely?
| jari_mustonen wrote:
| There is nothing ideal about that outcome. The "regime change"
| people talk about is intended to look like what happened in
| Libya: A failed state that falls in anarchy.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > look like what happened in Libya: A failed state that falls
| in anarchy.
|
| This comment just shows that you have no idea what Iran is,
| and how it differs from Libya.
|
| Libya is a loose conglomerate of tribes. Iran majorly Persian
| that see themselves as one nation. Completely different
| dynamics.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| It doesn't matter - when a strong and stable political
| structures suddenly collapse, the state fails and
| disintegrates due to the political infighting. While I
| agree with you that the chances of Iran becoming a
| completely failed state is unlikely, I do see an imminent
| civil war in Iran's future if a regime collapse happens,
| and the Americans and Israelis install their _Shahi_
| (royal) puppet there. A regime collapse will of course mean
| Iran will lose its sovereignty (probably for a decade or
| more), till a truly independent stable polity emerges form
| the ashes.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| Iranian regime is neither strong nor stable though. Or
| did you miss the recent round of nationwide protests that
| led to a desperate brutal crackdown?
| thisislife2 wrote:
| That's just simplistic western propaganda. Sporadic
| protests, nationwide or otherwise, don't mean anything
| unless they are backed by long-term-opposition with
| strong grass-roots and singular political goals. Iran's
| regime remains strong and stable - it controls all the
| political institutions, it controls the civilian
| government at the local level, it controls the religious
| / cultural institutions, it controls the military and it
| has substantial support from the people. Why do you think
| Israel or the US isn't sending boots to the ground? Apart
| from the official military, the IRGC has a voluntary
| civil force, that can be armed by the Iranian military,
| in every district - if Israel or US send their soldiers
| to Iran, they will face a very brutal urban warfare with
| a high death toll.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| You can't be short, minimal lethal AND regime change. Gotta be
| pretty bloody to make that happen.
| tim333 wrote:
| Unless like Venezuela. Or like 1953 https://en.wikipedia.org/
| wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
| tokai wrote:
| Nothing even close to regime change happened in Venezuela.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| It's the same regime, but they now take orders from Marco
| Rubio.
| rambojohnson wrote:
| u sweet summer child.
| plaidfuji wrote:
| > Minimally lethal
|
| "Israel strikes two schools in Iran, killing more than 80
| people"
|
| https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-...
|
| Welp, better luck next time
| shykes wrote:
| This reminds me of the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza,
| when a mysterious explosion at a hospital was immediately
| blamed on an Iraeli strike - first by Hamas, then by the
| international press. A precise death toll was immediately
| available: 500 killed. Israel urged caution as they
| investigated, but were ignored.
|
| Eventually, it was established that 1) the casualty number
| had been a fabrication, 2) the explosion was in the parking
| lot, 3) it was NOT caused by an Israeli strike, but by a
| Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that had fell short.
|
| Soon the press was forced to issue corrections - New York
| Times [1] , Le Monde [2], BBC [3]...
|
| This incident looks VERY similar. Which is not surprising,
| since Hamas was trained in information warfare by the IRGC.
| Note that Al Jazeera (the media arm of Qatar, who funds Hamas
| and hosts their leaders in Doha) is enthusiastically
| amplifying this story with no apparent effort to cross-
| examine Iran's official source.
|
| I predict that this story will turn out to be fabricated as
| well.
|
| UPDATE: preliminary reports from the OSINT community seem to
| indicate that the story was indeed a fabrication...
| https://x.com/tarikh_eran/status/2027784301840846939
|
| [1] https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/the-new-york-
| times-e...
|
| [2] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/24/a
| -no...
|
| [3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-
| grill...
| I-M-S wrote:
| What the comment fails to mention is that Al-Shifa hospital
| was ultimately destroyed by Israeli forces, with grave
| civilian casualties, and no Hamas tunnels ever found:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital
| niemandhier wrote:
| Previous conflicts between the involved parties were intense but
| also defined by constrain on both sides.
|
| Israel did not mass bomb civilians, and Iranian agents did not
| commit sabotage against infrastructure on US soil.
|
| I hope this pattern persists.
|
| A hand full of determined Ukrainians managed to blow up North
| Stream, some people plunged part of Berlin into darkness for 2
| weeks.
|
| Power and data cables as well as pipelines are as vulnerable in
| the US, as they are here. Maybe even more so.
|
| A regime that truly feared for its existence, might decide to
| escalate, since there is nothing to loose.
| ifwinterco wrote:
| I think the latter, the US is explicitly attempting a regime
| change operation so Iran has no reason for restraint.
|
| The US is aware of this, that's why they evacuated all their
| bases etc within range
| chrisjj wrote:
| > explicitly attempting a regime change operation
|
| I missed that press release. Where is it?
| Ardren wrote:
| > "When we are finished, take over your government. It will
| be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance
| for generations,"
|
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/us-and-israel-launch-a-
| ma...
| chrisjj wrote:
| ...if we didn't kill you.
|
| Thanks.
| vcryan wrote:
| US is to out of touch with reality, they want to put a
| Zionist who is generally hated by Iranians in power. Will
| never happen.
| ifwinterco wrote:
| Exactly, I have a hard time seeing how that will ever
| play out how they want.
|
| The whole reason the 1979 revolution happened in the
| first place was because the Shah was a blatant US/Israeli
| puppet
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| You've missed the part where islamist butchered the
| leaders of the actual 1979 revolution. In reality it was:
|
| unpopular shah -> 1979 revolution -> islamists take
| control, prison and kill the leftists of 1979 revolution.
| violentapricot wrote:
| It worked with Machado, so why wouldn't it work with...
| oh wait. We're governed by a shadowy criminal network of
| idiots.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > who is generally hated by Iranians in power.
|
| So that's why said Iranians chant Javid Shah?
| swat535 wrote:
| Iranian here, the Shah has surprisingly many supporters,
| both inside and abroad.
|
| Iran is a big complex country and is more diverse than
| people think.
| BoredPositron wrote:
| Nothing went dark for weeks as a German you should know that.
| DecoySalamander wrote:
| Maybe not weeks, but there was extensive damage and parts of
| Berlin went dark
| https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/07/europe/berlin-power-
| outag...
| BoredPositron wrote:
| That has 0 correlation with Northstream.
| tw04 wrote:
| Op didn't say they were connected. They were referring to
| two distinct but impactful events.
| vel0city wrote:
| The phrasing implies a connection.
|
| I was in a major car accident, I cannot walk.
|
| Oh the car accident was years ago, I was fine. I cannot
| walk because I'm seatbelted into a car driving down the
| road at the moment. Why would you have ever thought there
| was a connection?
| niemandhier wrote:
| Two examples of vulnerable infrastructure.
|
| But afaik both are related to the same conflict.
|
| The current hypothesis is that a left wing group
| triggered the outage in "protest" against Germanys
| involvement in the war.
| Tadpole9181 wrote:
| > Israel did not mass bomb civilians
|
| Within an hour Israel blew up an elementary school, killing 80
| civilians.
| red75prime wrote:
| A school located at 27.109828degN, 57.084744degE was hit and
| partially collapsed. That is the extent of the hard evidence.
| Tadpole9181 wrote:
| Oh my God, is this 2001 again?
|
| > All we know is that they _did_ launch a missile that blew
| up a school. That 's it. Just a little woopsies!
|
| Ignore what schools are for and who are in them and what
| communities exist around them. Ignore that a school is
| clearly not a fucking military target. Ignore the workers
| digging through rubble and the reported deaths.
|
| No, despite the past 25 years, the US and Israel's
| governments are not only trustworthy, but the _only_ source
| of truth. There are no deaths in Ba Sing Se. There were
| nuclear missiles hidden in that school!
|
| And, of course, I'm sure we'll hear next that any deaths
| were terrorists. And if any photos of lifeless kids come
| up, clearly they're some kind of pinatas or AI! And if
| their names and life stories come out and there are
| funerals - duh, state actors!
|
| My country has completely lost its fucking mind. Which I
| guess makes sense enough after spending my entire adult
| life watching people basically shrug over little kids being
| gunned down at school.
|
| Which, dang, that reminds me how Sandy Hook was also a
| conspiracy and I've had to suffer listening to the same
| exact "state actor" thing with that.
| nullocator wrote:
| Israel has been mass bombing civilians right next door for
| years now.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Then explain how the Population of Palestine keeps growing.
| marcyb5st wrote:
| I find the nuclear motivation an excuse. I mean, enrichment
| plants or not, if Iran wants a few nukes I am pretty sure that
| Russia would part with some enriched material and smuggle it
| pretty easily to Iran.
|
| My theory is that Israel has dirt (Epstein files maybe) on Trump
| and holds him by the balls. The second idea is that this is an
| obfuscation campaign to have the public opinion forget about
| Epstein, the state of the real economy, the falling approval
| rates, or all of the above.
| xbmcuser wrote:
| What makes you think Trump is not interested in this himself
| they just offered him hotels and land. Him getting blackmailed
| is I feel a lot of people that have voted for him are using as
| a coping mechanism. The attack on Iran proves the point just
| like Russia attacking Ukraine if you want to protect your
| territories you need nuclear weapons. Canada, Greenland and
| countries in South America should also look to acquire nuclear
| weapons as once they are done with Iran you will be the next.
| drcongo wrote:
| Bored of Peace
| checker659 wrote:
| I think its only just getting started
| shevy-java wrote:
| It kind of reveals Trump as a big liar. Not that this is a
| surprise, but even in his own self-image he can no longer try to
| shift the blame to others. Now he committed to war until regime
| change occurs.
| epolanski wrote:
| The president of peace btw.
|
| I'm baffled at the lack of calls to boycott the Fifa world cup in
| US.
|
| And at the double standards applied to Russians and Israelis in
| their wars of aggression.
|
| I guess Israel can play the "October 7th" card at least which was
| an insane horror.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| I can't believe the winner of the FIFA Peace Prize would do
| such a thing.
| tim333 wrote:
| I for one can no longer take the FIFA Peace Prize seriously.
| hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
| People still believe October 7th attacks weren't intentionally
| allowed? There is a lot of legitimate debate on this topic as
| the security failures are unusual and are still officially
| being discussed in Israel.
| xg15 wrote:
| I see no "smoking gun" for this yet, but yeah, there are a
| lot of indicators, such as alarm calls by military observers
| being ignored beforehand, IDF units having been moved from
| the Gaza envelope to the West Bank before, etc.
|
| Of course, Netanyahu could counter those rumors by
| establishing a state commission if inquiry, but instead he
| fights tooth and nail to prevent this from happening...
| xg15 wrote:
| Also, the official explanation how October 7 could have
| happened honestly makes no sense to me. Somehow Hamas
| suddenly gained super powers on that day and could break
| through the "containment" that ostensibly had been
| perfectly adequate before. And because of their mysterious
| newfound strength, it was also imperative to bomb Gaza to
| bits and impossible to go back to the security situation as
| it was before...
| gghhzzgghhzz wrote:
| The one I can't get over is that when Netanyahu was
| speaking at the UN, he claimed they have hacked mobile
| phones in Gaza to force broadcast the speech.
|
| Yet months of co-ordination and training between various
| disconnected groups / gangs / militias, was completely
| undetectable.
| kakacik wrote:
| Well either utter incompetence of every part of military of
| israel, or planned to allow it to happen. They even removed
| most of the guards spread across the region, those who were
| left were often only with pistols from what I've heard. They
| were closely monitoring hamas training for exactly this just
| before it happened.
|
| Sure, some incompetent russian fsb officer who got his place
| thanks to nepotism may miss that, but _mosad_ , on border
| with one's mortal enemy? Give me a break, there is 0 logic
| and knowledge of the involved parties in such thinking.
|
| But its expected, say soviet union went to great lengths to
| make state terror official and legal, justified and all by th
| books. Not sure for whom since all knew what chaotic terror
| was happening all the time and there was often no logic in
| who was next, but the face of the regime needed to have
| everything straight and square.
|
| Anyway, those who actually care about the topic understand it
| well, its not some superbly hidden scheming bur rather facts
| in plain sight. The rest of folks simply don't care
| cogman10 wrote:
| Incompetence can't be ruled out.
|
| I've listened to podcasts discussing the Israel military.
| One thing that people need to realize is that the IDF and
| it's leaders are skewed incredibly young. The mandatory
| service paired with the fact that people often don't stay
| in service means that they have 30 year old colonels and 35
| year old generals.
|
| They don't have the sort of career and institution
| knowledge like the US military has.
| randallsquared wrote:
| > _on border with one 's mortal enemy_
|
| I have no special stake or knowledge of this, but Israel
| hasn't treated Gaza or Palestinians as their "mortal
| enemy"... more of a problematic-but-largely-contained
| source of rockets and hateful rhetoric, at least until
| 2023.
| tovej wrote:
| They have treated Palestinians as a pest to be
| exterminated since before Israel existed. Israels entire
| existence is based on the erasure of the Palestinian
| people.
| randallsquared wrote:
| There are five times as many Palestinians in Palestine-
| the-region as there were in 1960.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Careful people will call you an antisemite for even bringing
| this topic.
| LtWorf wrote:
| In Italy a famous jewish actor commenting a law that wants
| to make antisemitism illegal said it's a bit weird a former
| fascist minister gets to decide that he's antisemite.
|
| https://www.ilgiornaleditalia.it/news/politica/765547/ddl-
| an...
| chokominto wrote:
| If that was an attitude of Israel towards its people they
| wouldn't go to such length to return the hostages home.
| hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
| Israel obviously consists of different groups with
| different incentives. We shouldn't undermine the years of
| protests by many citizens, some of which are still seeking
| justice from those responsible for the security failures
| (particularly Netanyahu).
| epolanski wrote:
| It's a well documented fact that Netanyahu has always wanted
| and actively supported Hamas leadership in order to have no
| reasons to sit at the table of with the PLA.
|
| When the other side is led by what you can easily sell to the
| world as terrorists, you're by default the good guys.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _well documented fact that Netanyahu has always wanted
| and actively supported Hamas leadership_
|
| To be fair, this is also explained by the Delcy Rodriguez
| strategy: the bastard you know trumps the bastard you
| don't. Israel could have become complacent thinking they
| had a deal with Hamas and, as long as they kept the money
| flowing, the Palestinians had no rational reason to attack.
| (Which they didn't. October 7 was a stupid move.)
| hjkl0 wrote:
| People like you still spread stupid lies about it, but no one
| with any sense believes them. There is no legitimate debate
| on the subject, only propaganda, and it comes from Benjamin
| Netanyahu directly.
|
| Obviously, it's the same stupidity that "allowed" the 7th of
| October attacks to happen. These people are way too scared
| and hateful of Palestinians to conspire with them like this.
| They allowed it to happen through sheer incompetence. They
| just let their guard down, quite literally.
|
| If they could actually cooperate well enough to work together
| on something like the 7th of October of attacks, which were
| under active planning for at least two years and involved
| thousands of highly trained men, don't you think they'd be
| able to cooperate on something positive too?
| yoavm wrote:
| What a pile of non-sense. I despise literally everyone in the
| Israeli government, but suggesting this was allowed by anyone
| in the government/military/intelligence is the lowest low
| form of ridiculous conspiracy theory.
|
| Nothing like this is "officially discussed in Israel", unless
| you mean "repeatedly officially denied".
| JasonADrury wrote:
| >I guess Israel can play the "October 7th" card at least which
| was an insane horror.
|
| If October 7th is an "insane horror", what words will suffice
| to describe the decades of far worse crimes committed by
| Israel?
|
| Considering the scale of suffering caused by this conflict,
| October 7th was just a small blip.
| epolanski wrote:
| While I agree, and I find that Israel is on the wrong side of
| history, I'm not entirely into seeing this whole matter as
| black and white.
|
| I have the opinion that modern world history is mostly shaped
| around each countries/population traumas that echo through
| society till today.
|
| E.g. the biggest trauma of Ukrainians aren't even the events
| that are playing recently, but the Holodomor that happened
| 100 years ago. On the other hand the biggest trauma on
| Russian side is still the German invasion and war of
| annihilation happened during the second world war. As both
| sides see themselves as the victims and see the other side as
| the aggressor (or collaborator) and none has ever taken a
| step back to recognize their actions, they simply cannot
| communicate.
|
| The biggest trauma of China is the century of humiliation
| where western powers and Japan went above and beyond any
| decency in their actions. Thus, Chinese society and
| leadership is _all_ about never being dictated conditions and
| terms by foreign powers. They see themselves as victims of
| events that they don 't want to see ever again.
|
| The jewish Israeli population biggest trauma are centuries if
| not millenia of animosity, racism and violence coming from
| any side, last but definitely not least the Holocaust. Thus
| Israel is all about security at all costs, even if it means
| bending any sign of human decency. Again, they see themselves
| as victims and their actions will always go in that
| direction.
|
| Sadly many parts of the world, many countries, many
| societies, are simply too scarred and unable to take a step
| back from the victim mentality and recognize their own
| actions.
|
| Israelis are unable to recognize they are Goliath and not
| David from the longest time, they are unable and unwilling to
| say sorry, the last Israeli leader that tried, got
| assassinated by one of his own.
|
| The arabic/muslim population in the area too see themselves
| as victims of the post world war 2 events, and they are as
| well unable to recognize how scarred and traumatized is
| Israeli society from centuries of events, including modern
| ones where they had to survive against hostile Arab
| coalitions aimed to annihilate them.
|
| So, without a generation of leaders able to recognize and
| understand the role of history and those traumas and
| empathize with the other sides we're trapped in those loops
| of aggression.
| huevosabio wrote:
| This is a great post. It really sheds light to basically
| all the modern conflicts. Thanks.
| bavell wrote:
| One of the most sane and dispassionate takes I've seen.
| Kudos.
| cossray wrote:
| This really puts so many modern conflicts into perspective.
| Everyone sees themselves as victims. Unfortunately, a
| consensus on who is and isn't a victim will always be
| highly elusive.
| jknutson wrote:
| You've just explained my own thoughts better than I ever
| have been able to, especially what with the political
| minefield that is literally anything mentioned in your
| post. Brilliantly articulate. I have half a mind to commit
| your entire comments text to memory and just repeat it ad
| verbatim whenever I am asked about my opinions on these
| things.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _The jewish Israeli population biggest trauma are
| centuries if not millenia of animosity, racism and violence
| coming from any side ... is all about security at all
| costs, even if it means bending any sign of human decency.
| Again, they see themselves as victims and their actions
| will always go in that direction._
|
| I don't see this any different to terrorism apologia (the
| trauma of 1mn dead in Iraq and another million in
| Afghanistan, for example). I guess, if the leaders wear
| suits & ties and hide behind the garb of democracy, then we
| _should_ all understand why military they command commit
| crimes against humanity. Every perpetrator
| of terrorism sees himself as a victim. Such is the case not
| only with individual terrorists, who often compete with
| their enemies over who is more victimized, but also with
| terrorist groups and nation states.
|
| - Bessel van der Kolk (author, The Body Keeps the Score:
| Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma).
|
| The problem isn't the "trauma". The problem is the excuse.
|
| > _they are as well unable to recognize how scarred and
| traumatized is Israeli society from centuries of events_
|
| First, 400mn Arabs (or 2bn+ muslims) aren't a monolith or
| brainless zombies. Second, the "centuries of events" is
| just European guilt. Nothing to do with the Arab world.
| pzo wrote:
| you are simplifying too much - whats then US trauma in this
| case and all other cases of invasion and coups in the lat
| 75 years?
|
| Maybe trauma you are talking about it's just excuse to
| control opinion of voters and manufacture consent but under
| the hood its just all about power and being rich (not
| always but in many cases).
| grehbies wrote:
| Humoring the notion, America is a capitalist enterprise
| that put on the religious and humanist airs that were
| conveniently en vogue at the time of its founding, and
| which it always goes back to when its economic reality
| becomes too onerous. The contradiction baked into our
| existence is felt subconsciously by most, and there is a
| psychological toll taken in knowing that your society is
| built, in part, on hypocrisy, and having to be vigilant
| for when the other shoe inevitably drops, so that you can
| at least get out alive.
| epolanski wrote:
| I am not simplifying, and my lenses aren't an explanation
| for every world event.
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| Extremely great post with detailed examples
|
| > So, without a generation of leaders able to recognize and
| understand the role of history and those traumas and
| empathize with the other sides we're trapped in those loops
| of aggression.
|
| The sad reality (imo) about this truth is that the
| qualities needed to be a leader aren't empathy. There was a
| vid about it which went more into detail but When you
| observe leaders, you find that they are extremely weird and
| sometimes psychopathic.
|
| To me it also feels like if a leader is emphatetic towards
| the other part, other leaders more extreme would spring up
| saying that he's an enemy from within or something
| equivalent to it.
|
| The empathy of the leader is one of the most disregarded
| qualities. I would go so far as to say that leaders aren't
| even empathetic towards the general population of their own
| nations/community sometimes.
|
| It's really sad but the Empathy you mention and cowardice
| can look the same to many & the Empathatic leader would get
| booted out of/not given a chance.
|
| For example, within America itself, I feel like John mccain
| was a good guy and I would consider him empathetic in the
| sense that I remember seeing interviews of him saying that
| he and Obama just have some minor differences in policy
| making when there were people attending his rallies asking
| that they don't feel safe about Obama.
|
| I am just gonna say that This leader of republican party
| was lost for what is now Donald Trump.
|
| Oh I just watched the rally/interview again[0], when he
| said that you don't have to be scared of Obama, he was
| audibly booed by the public. (But also they clapped once
| when he said later in the campaign that Obama was decent
| person?)
|
| It isn't impossible to have empathetic leaders but I do
| think that perhaps as a civilization, we would need to take
| class act/honesty/integrity more into account than we take
| in the current system which to me all across the world
| sometimes feel like picking the lesser evil/not-greater-
| good at times though I can only speak for myself.
|
| [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk
| whearyou wrote:
| Preach brother. Collective trauma traps us all
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| I agree that we should remember historical traumas, but I
| don't agree they suffice to explain international politics.
|
| Take the Greeks (that's my people! Us!) and the Turkish. I
| guess people in the West don't remember this but the
| Israelis are not the only people in the Middle East who
| have a word that means "disaster" (Shoah, for the Israelis;
| Katastrophe- Catastrophe for us), that when anyone says it
| everyone knows exactly which disaster is spoken of. They
| are not the only people who lost the land their ancestors
| inhabited for thousands of years (Ionia, for us Greeks),
| who lost their greatest city (Constantinople, _the_ City),
| who lost their greatest temple that was turned into a
| Mosque (the Hagia Sophia). Us, Greeks, too, have suffered
| these ignominies at the hand of the Turkish. Our common
| history with the Turkish is one of war, destruction,
| violence and blood. So much blood.
|
| Genocide? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
| Check. Ethnic cleansing? Check. Death marches through the
| deserts? Check, check, check.
|
| And yet, since the Catastrophe, in 1922, we have been at
| peace with the Turkish, even through serious hot episodes
| in the Mediterrannean, like Cyprus. That's 100 years of
| peace, after 1500 years of history of war.
|
| It can be done. The trauma can be overcome, if both sides
| agree to it. To quote none other than Moshe Dayan: if you
| want to make peace you talk to your enemies, not your
| friends.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I wonder how Greek-Turkish relations would look like if
| both nations were stuck in a relatively small piece of
| land - say, the size of the European part of Turkey. And
| with Constantinople/Istanbul ethnically mixed in about
| 50:50 ratio.
|
| It is a lot easier to conclude peace if both adversaries
| have a plenty of "their own" land to live on and can
| sorta-kinda ignore each other while doing so.
| dijit wrote:
| "small blip" isn't a political take, it's just wrong.
|
| October 7th was the deadliest per capita terrorist attack
| since the Global Terrorism Database started recording in 1970
| [1]. Globally, it's third on the all-time list (behind only
| 9/11 and one IS attack [1]. The confirmed death toll from
| Israeli social security data (not government press releases)
| is 1,139, which still makes it 31 times deadlier than the
| next worst attack in Israeli history [2][3].
|
| You invoked scale. Those are the numbers. They don't say what
| you wanted them to say.
|
| And for the record: one atrocity not excusing another cuts
| both ways. Nobody here argued otherwise. What was actually
| said (by the person you're replying to) is that you cannot
| use scale as your framework whilst hand-waving away the
| single largest data point in the argument.
|
| If you mean the Nakba, Sabra and Shatila, or the current
| death toll in Gaza -- those are serious. But "decades of far
| worse crimes" doing the work of making October 7th a "small
| blip" doesn't follow. You can have a long ledger of serious
| grievances and still recognise that one morning where 1,139
| people were massacred (including at a music festival, in
| kibbutz bedrooms, in bomb shelters) was not a blip. It was
| the deadliest single terrorist attack per capita since
| records began.
|
| There is no moral argument for October 7th, and the reaction
| is disproportionate and unjustifiable - but inevitable. We
| should all be so unlucky to have neighbours like those, and
| nobody knows how we would all act if we did.
|
| [1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/hamass-october-7-attack-
| visual...
|
| [2] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-
| social...
|
| [3] https://www.csis.org/analysis/hamass-october-7-attack-
| visual...
| Gud wrote:
| The reaction by the Israelis against the Palestinians is
| even worse
| dijit wrote:
| The reaction is worse in what sense, exactly? Raw
| numbers? Then you're back to the same argument as above,
| where October 7th (again, the third deadliest terrorist
| attack since records began in 1970) somehow doesn't
| count.
|
| Nobody serious disputes that Gazan civilians are
| suffering enormously. The argument isn't about that. It's
| about whether Hamas represents them, and the answer is:
| less and less, given that Hamas hasn't held an election
| since 2006, has siphoned aid money into tunnels and
| rockets for two decades [1], and on October 7th sent men
| with garden tools to decapitate Thai agricultural workers
| [2] and film themselves doing it.
|
| You can condemn Israel's conduct (and there's plenty to
| condemn) without pretending the people who started this
| particular escalation were freedom fighters having a bad
| day.
|
| [1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/hamass-
| october-7-attack-visual...
|
| [2] https://www.nationthailand.com/world/middle-east-
| africa/4003...
| mattlondon wrote:
| I think wholesale genocide of an entire population by the
| Israeli state is worse. The plan is obviously drive the
| Palestinians onto the sea (metaphorically) and make the
| place uninhabitable.
|
| Israel (and I want to be clear, I am referring to Israel
| the state) has blood on their hands. This went way beyond
| a "self defense" thing - flattening the entire country,
| indiscriminate killing of civilians and children,
| murdering paramedics and bombing ambulances, destroying
| schools hospitals apartment buildings etc. By a modern
| democratic state with the most accurate smart weapons
| available. It's simply unbelievable to me that they are
| getting away with it.
| dijit wrote:
| Most of what you say I don't disagree with. Israel's
| conduct since October 8th (the civilian death toll, the
| aid blockade, the flattening of hospitals) is legitimate
| to call out. The ICJ found the genocide claim plausible
| enough to issue binding provisional measures, which
| Israel then ignored [1]. That's not nothing.
|
| But "wholesale genocide" and "the plan is obviously to
| drive them into the sea" are stronger claims than the
| evidence supports right now, and that matters a lot
| because the moment you overreach, everyone who wants to
| dismiss Palestinian suffering has a rhetorical exit. The
| ICJ's own careful language exists for a reason.
|
| None of that touches the original argument anyway: that
| October 7th was not a "small blip." Israel's conduct
| after October 8th doesn't retroactively change what
| happened on October 7th. Both things are true
| simultaneously. That's the whole point I'm making.
|
| [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/26/israel-not-
| complying-wor...
| mattlondon wrote:
| No, I think I have to respectfully disagree: in the
| continuum of the Palestine-Israel conflict, this _was_ a
| small blip. Israel has been killing civilians
| indiscriminately for years /decades, annexing territory,
| bulldozing homes etc.
|
| What was different this time was that it was Israel who
| was the victim, not the Palestinians. And the only way
| that Israel knows how to respond to these kinds of things
| is to kill and to destroy.
| dijit wrote:
| "What was different this time was that it was Israel who
| was the victim."
|
| You've just described the deadliest day for Jews since
| the Holocaust [1] as a blip because, in your accounting,
| it was Israel's turn to absorb one.
|
| The "continuum" framing doesn't hold up numerically
| either. In non-war years, OCHA records roughly 100-200
| Palestinian deaths annually at Israeli hands [2]. Hamas
| killed 1,139 people before lunchtime. That's not a blip
| in a continuum, it's five to ten years of equivalent
| deaths in eight hours.
|
| The youngest victim was 14 hours old [3]. The oldest was
| a 92-year-old Holocaust survivor [3]. None of those facts
| change based on who you think had it coming.
|
| [1] https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-
| releases/museu...
|
| [2] https://www.ochaopt.org/content/casualties-thousands-
| killed-...
|
| [3] https://www.yahoo.com/news/youngest-october-7-victim-
| just-00...
| mystraline wrote:
| I would have figured the families of the Jews who built
| Israel would have realized "holocaust bad, never again".
|
| What they learned was "never again to us".
|
| Just because your family had a holocaust executed against
| them, doesnt give you any (legal, ethical, moral) right
| to run your own holocaust.
|
| And Israel is running a holocaust in Palestine, and has
| been for decades.
| halflife wrote:
| You do realize that there were live Israeli hostages
| Hamas held up until the last ceasefire?
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _I think wholesale genocide of an entire population by
| the Israeli state is worse_
|
| would be worse, but wasn't contemplated nor attempted so
| contributes no weight to the balance.
|
| "from the river to the sea" on the other hand is a
| statement of genocidal intent.
| mcphage wrote:
| > Nobody serious disputes that Gazan civilians are
| suffering enormously. The argument isn't about that.
|
| Why isn't it?
| dijit wrote:
| Because it's a different argument to the one being made,
| and addressing seventeen things at once is how threads
| become unreadable.
|
| But since you're asking: go up four comments and you'll
| find it already addressed there in some detail. Keep up.
| Intermernet wrote:
| "Nobody serious disputes that Gazan civilians are
| suffering enormously."
|
| This is blatantly untrue. There are people who are saying
| there's no such thing as a "Gazan civilian".
| dijit wrote:
| Come off it, that's a technicality and everyone knows the
| meaning.
|
| An uncharitable person would easily debunk this by making
| claims about the idea that 'because of israel they can't
| have a state to be civilian of' and then the topic gets
| super muddy because that's technically not true and we go
| around and around and around.
| Intermernet wrote:
| The Israeli government has been dehumanising the Gazan
| population in rhetoric for decades. Claiming that no one
| would deny their suffering is straight up false. It's not
| a technicality, it's a deliberate technique.
|
| It's one of the things that could be stopped to prevent
| us going "around and around and around."
| Supermancho wrote:
| > October 7th was the deadliest per capita terrorist attack
| since the Global Terrorism Database started recording in
| 1970
|
| > You invoked scale. Those are the numbers. They don't say
| what you wanted them to say.
|
| 1200 Oct7 vs tens of thousands in annexation and
| retaliation.
|
| The numbers speak for themselves. No need to cherry pick.
| dijit wrote:
| Nobody cherry-picked anything. Per capita, single-event,
| it's the number that answers the claim that was actually
| made -- that October 7th was a "blip."
|
| What you're doing now is a different argument entirely:
| aggregate conflict deaths over 77 years vs. one morning.
| That's not context, it's a category error dressed up as
| one.
|
| For what it's worth, the full Palestinian death toll
| since 1948 is ~136,000 [1] -- a Palestinian source, so
| spare me the bias complaint. That's across eight decades,
| multiple Arab-Israeli wars, three intifadas, and several
| state actors. October 7th still isn't a blip. It's a
| massacre inside a war.
|
| Which is exactly what everyone's been saying.
|
| [1] https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/145161
| Supermancho wrote:
| > What you're doing now is a different argument entirely:
|
| I've not made an argument. I've provided the proper
| context that supports the original point.
|
| >> Considering the scale of suffering caused by this
| conflict, - Jasonadrury
|
| your response:
|
| > That's not context, it's a category error dressed up as
| one.
|
| You have shifted goalposts in every post. The context was
| the conflict in aggregate. Continue arguing with
| yourself. It's not compelling.
| dijit wrote:
| "I've not made an argument" is a fascinating claim
| immediately after quoting someone who used aggregate
| scale to call October 7th a "blip"- and agreeing with
| them.
|
| Providing context _in support of a conclusion_ is making
| an argument. That 's what arguments are.
|
| The goalposts that moved: "blip" (single event framing)
| -> "scale of the conflict" (aggregate framing) -> "I
| wasn't arguing anything." Three posts, three different
| claims, now apparently none of them count.
|
| Noted.
| whycome wrote:
| What's an 'event'?
| dijit wrote:
| ...
|
| A discrete incident with a defined start, end,
| perpetrator and location.
|
| (As opposed to a 77-year conflict involving multiple
| states, wars and actors.)
|
| Now ask me one on sport.
| tovej wrote:
| That is pretty much the definition of cherry picking
| right there.
|
| You sure have a big stake in defending a genocide, Jan.
| dijit wrote:
| The OCHA data is linked above. Read it or don't.
| bluecalm wrote:
| Rockets regularly target Israel. If that happened to USA
| the war would start with the first one no matter if it
| was intercepted or not. Same with any other self-
| respecting country. Israel is fully justified trying to
| eliminate threats to itself. It's not only about October
| 7th.
| tovej wrote:
| How can you claim this with a straight face, when Israel
| has slaughtered Palestinians like cattle every chance they
| have. And when they're not killing them with direct
| violence, they are robbing them of basic necessities and
| human dignity.
|
| And how can you claim October 7th wasn't an act if war? The
| main thrust of the attacks were targeting military
| installations. Much more than Israeli actions in Gaza
| before or since, which have clearly been done in service of
| genocide since Israel was created.
|
| The Palestinian genocide has not been a regular war, it has
| been an absolute extermination campaign that is still
| ongoing.
| dijit wrote:
| "The main thrust targeted military installations"-- of
| 1,139 confirmed dead, 828 were civilians. That's 72%.
| They also massacred 364 people at a music festival, which
| Hamas later described as a "coincidence" because they
| "may have thought" ravers were soldiers "resting". That's
| the defence you're endorsing.
|
| Nobody serious disputes that Gaza's suffering is real or
| that Israel's conduct warrants scrutiny. But "genocide
| since Israel was created" is doing a lot of work for you;
| the ICJ found Palestinian rights were "plausibly" at
| risk, not that 1948 was a genocide.
|
| Words mean things. Overreaching doesn't help the people
| you're claiming to defend, it just makes it easier for
| the other side to dismiss everything else you say.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| So the best you can say about Israel's conduct over the
| course of the past 2.5 years is that it "warrants
| scrutiny"?
|
| And if you want to play the number of victims game, even
| pre Oct 7 one side has always had it significantly worse
| than the other. After all, one side is a sovereign state
| that has a technologically advanced military, an air
| force, a navy, and air defense systems.
| dijit wrote:
| Remarkable. You've managed to read a comment that cited
| the ICJ, called out Israel's non-compliance with binding
| provisional measures, and explicitly said there's "plenty
| to condemn"; and concluded the position is that Israeli
| conduct merely "warrants scrutiny."
|
| This isn't a conversation, it's not even engagement:
| that's just not reading.
|
| On asymmetry: you've accidentally made the case for
| holding Israel to a _higher_ standard. A nuclear-capable
| state with F-35s, Iron Dome and a $3.8bn annual US
| military subsidy [1] bears more responsibility for its
| choices than a militia in a blockaded strip of land; not
| less. That 's what asymmetry actually means.
|
| What it doesn't mean is that a music festival full of
| civilians somehow doesn't count. But nice try.
|
| [1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12587
| Cyph0n wrote:
| > that Israel's conduct warrants scrutiny.
|
| Was this not your choice of words?
|
| > On asymmetry: you've accidentally made the case for
| holding Israel to a higher standard.
|
| Huh? Are you replying to someone else?
|
| Israel has killed 10s of thousands of civilians, a large
| portion of which are children. This along with many other
| factors - in addition to the higher standard expected
| from a sovereign state fighting an occupied people - is
| the reason we call it a genocide.
| dijit wrote:
| No, I think you're accusing me of a position I don't
| really have because I don't like Hamas _or_ Israel, but
| you think my condemnation of Hamas is support of Israel
| or that by pointing out Israeli suffering I am turning a
| blind eye to Palestinian suffering.
|
| It's almost as if we genuinely believe that because there
| are more deaths on one side, that the other is deserving
| and should not be condemned despite innocence.
|
| Isn't that interesting.
| holmesworcester wrote:
| A reminder: Israel counts Hamas soldiers as military
| targets, even when they are out of uniform and in
| civilian life.
|
| If we apply the civilized world's standards of war then
| yes, Israelis who are also off-duty soldiers or
| reservists don't count as military targets.
|
| If we apply _Israel 's_ standards, however, they are.
|
| Are Gazans not allowed to apply the same standards to
| their adversaries that their adversaries openly apply to
| them? Would you be this courteous, in their position?
| dijit wrote:
| Of the 378 people killed at and around Nova, 16 were off-
| duty soldiers attending the rave and 4 were killed
| fighting [1]. That's 20 out of 378 ... so about 5%.
|
| So even by the standard you're proposing, Hamas massacred
| around 358 people who wouldn't qualify as military
| targets under anyone's rules of engagement. Including
| theirs, apparently, since Hamas's own explanation was
| that they "may have thought" the ravers were soldiers
| "resting"; i.e. they didn't know and killed them anyway.
|
| The argument you've constructed requires Hamas to have
| been applying a targeting framework. The evidence is that
| they found a large crowd of Israelis and opened fire.
|
| [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-okayed-nova-music-
| festival...
| JasonADrury wrote:
| Ah, so they'd only _previously_ been members of the IDF?
|
| Do you suppose Israel doesn't consider _previous_ members
| of Hamas legitimate targets?
|
| >The argument you've constructed requires Hamas to have
| been applying a targeting framework. The evidence is that
| they found a large crowd of Israelis and opened fire.
|
| But that's effectively indistinguishable from the Israeli
| targeting framework where everyone connected to Hamas is
| a legitimate target.
| dijit wrote:
| This is settled in international humanitarian law. Per
| Human Rights Watch, citing ICRC guidance: "reservists of
| national armed forces are considered civilians except
| when they go on duty." [1] Off-duty at a music festival
| unambiguously qualifies as not on duty.
|
| The argument that prior military service permanently
| strips civilian status has no basis in IHL. If it did,
| every Israeli who'd ever served (which is nearly all of
| them, given conscription) would be a legitimate target
| forever.
|
| So: not a targeting framework, more like a justification
| for killing the entire population.
|
| On your second point: Israel's targeting decisions are
| also subject to IHL, and where they kill civilians
| unlawfully that's also a war crime. That's not a defence
| of Hamas... it's the same standard applied consistently.
|
| "They do it too" doesn't make either lawful.
|
| For what it's worth, joining Hamas is a choice; IDF
| service is compulsory. The cases aren't analogous.
|
| [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/09/questions-and-
| answers-oc...
| JasonADrury wrote:
| > This is settled in international humanitarian law
|
| Neither participant in the Israel-Hamas conflict
| subscribes to that.
|
| And I'm not really sure how you could expect the small
| resistance group to follow international humanitarian law
| when the big state they're fighting doesn't either? That
| seems absurd.
| bigyabai wrote:
| > This is settled in international humanitarian law.
|
| Many things are settled in international humanitarian
| law, thus far it hasn't stopped either side from ignoring
| it wholesale.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| A wonderful quote that demonstrates how Israel applies
| different standards to itself: even its active duty
| combatants are painted as helpless innocents!
|
| "Nimrod Cohen was abducted from Tank 3"
|
| https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjzgyg9txg
| bluecalm wrote:
| Israel has to apply that standard because Hamas operates
| without uniforms unlike IDF. So yeah, Gazans shouldn't
| apply the same standard because unlike them Israeli
| military operates in uniforms so it's easy to distinguish
| between them and civilians. That Gazans do the opposite
| is on them.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| Are you sure? Israel is kind of notorious for having
| people in civilian clothes kill its enemies.
| bluecalm wrote:
| Sure, if that happens then it needs to be investigated as
| a potential war crime. It still doesn't change the fact
| that Israel is in no position to apply that standard
| because fighting Gazans don't use uniforms. Obviously
| they will not treat people shooting at them and launching
| rockets at them as civilians.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| I notice that your database does not for whatever reason
| contain any of the actions taken by the Israeli government,
| why is that?
|
| How are we supposed to get an understanding of the scale of
| these events while totally disregarding Israeli actions?
| dijit wrote:
| Because the Global _Terrorism_ Database records non-state
| terrorist attacks.
|
| State military action is categorised separately: that's
| not an omission, it's a _definition_ , but you know that-
| you're playing stupid. The same database doesn't record
| US drone strikes or Russian artillery either, weird,
| right? Must be suppression!!!
|
| If you want Israeli state violence, OCHA tracks it. _That
| data has been cited in this thread already._
| JasonADrury wrote:
| I know that, but why are you referring to this database
| then? It's just not really relevant in this particular
| context.
|
| You're saying that the numbers don't say what I want them
| to say, but then you choose a rather weird set of numbers
| to demonstrate this with. It's weird!
| vehemenz wrote:
| Can you provide some support for your moral position? You've
| also put "insane horror" in scare quotes, which honestly I
| find troubling.
|
| Does your moral account provide some justificatory, non-
| antisemitic framework based on colonialism or oppression that
| allows us to sidestep the issues with Gazans' support of
| Jihad, other extremist doctrines, and the extermination of
| Jews?
|
| It's kind of a rhetorical question, but it's the least I
| would expect for someone to argue credibly about the morality
| of the conflict.
| albedoa wrote:
| They're not "scare quotes", they're quotes.
| vehemenz wrote:
| Huh? In English orthography, quotes can serve multiple
| purposes.
|
| Most native English speakers wouldn't see the parent's
| use of quotes (quotation marks) as merely mention.
| albedoa wrote:
| This isn't the least bit confusing man. The author
| confirms the purpose of the quotes, which is effortlessly
| understandable by native and non-native speakers alike.
| They were used to quote and comment on a direct phrase
| from the parent comment.
|
| You absolutely do not need to double down on whatever it
| is you are doing here lol. Say you were wrong and move
| on.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| Yeah, they're just quotes. It's a quote.
|
| >Can you provide some support for your moral position?
|
| Yes, of course. A bunch of people from Europe decided to
| move to Palestine and start a religious ethnostate there.
| In doing so they expelled and murdered lots of local
| residents.
|
| The surviving locals are understandably less than happy
| about this, and have continued to fight to defend their
| lands to this day.
|
| Since then, the those people have caused far more harm to
| non-jewish Palestinians than non-jewish Palestinians have
| caused to the those people.
|
| >allows us to sidestep the issues with Gazans' support of
| Jihad, other extremist doctrines, and the extermination of
| Jews?
|
| It's perfectly natural that Gazans would support the
| extermination of jews. In the extreme environment that
| Israeli jews force Palestinians to live in, it's
| fundamentally ridiculous to even describe it as an
| extremist position.
|
| In a comfortable European context it's certainly extreme,
| but that's a fundamentally dishonest way of portraying it.
| dijit wrote:
| "It's perfectly natural that Gazans would support the
| extermination of Jews."
|
| That's not a point about colonialism or occupation;
| that's a justification for ethnic extermination based on
| the conditions of the people holding the position. By
| that logic there is no floor: any atrocity becomes
| "perfectly natural" if the grievance is large enough.
|
| In your broader argument you're describing a blood debt
| with no statute of limitations and no mechanism for
| resolution. Skane (where I live) was Danish. Alsace was
| German. Most of Europe was Roman. At some point borders
| exist, people live within them, and the only available
| direction is forward. You haven't described a political
| framework- you've described a permanent state of war with
| no exit condition except one side's disappearance.
|
| You just said it's perfectly natural to want to
| exterminate an ethnic group. Read that back.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| >By that logic there is no floor: any atrocity becomes
| "perfectly natural" if the grievance is large enough.
|
| This is mostly true, yeah. Do you not believe that humans
| act like that?
|
| >In your broader argument you're describing a blood debt
| with no statute of limitations and no mechanism for
| resolution
|
| Nonsense.
|
| >Skane (where I live) was Danish. Alsace was German. Most
| of Europe was Roman. At some point borders exist, people
| live within them, and the only available direction is
| forward.
|
| Except Israel does not want Palestine to move forward.
|
| There are approximately zero living people that give a
| shit about the things you mentioned, there are millions
| of living Palestinians who do care and suffer at the
| hands of Israeli state every single day.
|
| How did you intend for this comparison to be even vaguely
| relevant?
|
| >you've described a permanent state of war with no exit
| condition except one side's disappearance.
|
| This is deliberately obtuse, Israel has had a plenty of
| ways to largely exit this conflict. At the very least
| they could've given all Palestinians Israeli citizenship
| and equal rights decades ago.
|
| Of course, that's not really compatible with the ideals
| of the jewish ethnostate. I'm sure the Palestinians
| wouldn't seriously object though.
|
| >You just said it's perfectly natural to want to
| exterminate an ethnic group. Read that back.
|
| I'll repeat it if you want me to. We've seen it over and
| over again in history, it's hardly a new thing.
|
| Considering how the jewish people choose to treat the
| Palestinians, it is not surprising that Palestinians want
| to exterminate the jewish people. It is a perfectly
| predictable reaction, and not some special quirk of the
| Palestinians.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| Since I already wrote a reply to your now-deleted
| comment:
|
| >You've just made my point. The reason Skane isn't
| contested is that there are no living people suffering
| under Danish occupation of it. You've described the
| mechanism yourself: time plus resolution. That's exactly
| what a two-state settlement would produce. You've argued
| for the process without noticing.
|
| Israel has explicitly rejected that over and over again,
| and continues to do so every day through ongoing
| annexations.
|
| There will never be moral high ground for the state of
| Israel as long as it allows the settlements to exist and
| doesn't at the very least honor it's internationally
| recognized borders.
|
| >On citizenship: Israel granting full citizenship to all
| Palestinians would mean the end of a Jewish majority
| state within a generation, by demographics alone. You
| know that. Proposing it as a "simple solution Israel
| refused" is not a good faith argument; it's describing
| the dissolution of Israel but painting it as moderation.
|
| A jewish ethnostate is as morally unacceptable as an
| aryan ethnostate.
|
| >On extermination: you've moved from "perfectly natural"
| to "perfectly predictable." Those aren't the same thing.
| Predictable means understandable given the circumstances.
| Natural means it requires no further justification.
| You've retreated and you haven't noticed.
|
| No, it's both. It's predictable because it's a natural
| reaction.
| dijit wrote:
| Deleted it, yeah, I've decided it wasn't worth it. Still
| isn't, mostly.
|
| This will be my last comment to you, I don't want to
| engage with someone so comfortable at defending genocide.
|
| One final fact check for you: a state with 20% Arab
| citizens who vote, sit in the Knesset and serve on the
| Supreme Court is not comparable to a state founded on
| racial extermination. That comparison doesn't survive
| contact with the facts.
|
| The settlements are illegal and indefensible. I said so
| already in this thread.
|
| Everything else you've written today you can own.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| >One final fact check for you: a state with 20% Arab
| citizens who vote, sit in the Knesset and serve on the
| Supreme Court is not comparable to a state founded on
| racial extermination. That comparison doesn't survive
| contact with the facts.
|
| It is an indisputable historical fact that jewish
| zionists expelled vast amounts of Palestinians from their
| homes and forced them out of the territory of what is now
| modern Israel.
|
| >This will be my last comment to you, I don't want to
| engage with someone so comfortable at defending genocide.
|
| I'm not defending genocide, that's a ridiculous
| interpretation of my words. I'm just pointing out the
| fact that if you keep poking someone long or hard enough,
| you shouldn't be surprised when they eventually want to
| get rid of you.
|
| I certainly don't think the extermination of Israeli jews
| would in any way be a positive outcome.
| dijit wrote:
| Israel has been at the table at Oslo, Camp David, Taba
| and Annapolis. Palestinian leadership walked away from
| each without a counter-proposal. That's not a secret.
| vehemenz wrote:
| No one disagrees that the Gazans feel the way they do.
| But your position is a stronger one. You seem to be
| excusing or justifying the moral behavior of Gazans in a
| way that looks self-undermining.
|
| It's not morally credible to focus on the Jews' actions
| alone, given the broader context of the conflict, Islamic
| conquest and domination. I don't want to be patronizing
| and give history lessons, but antisemitism, Jihadism, and
| other Islamicist extremist doctrines predate the state of
| Israel by centuries.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| So, are you saying that it's not justified for Gazans to
| feel the way they do? Why not?
|
| > It's not morally credible to focus on the Jews' actions
| alone, given the broader context of the conflict, Islamic
| conquest and domination. I don't want to be patronizing
| and give history lessons, but antisemitism, Jihadism, and
| other Islamicist extremist doctrines predate the state of
| Israel by centuries.
|
| That's just whataboutism and has approximately nothing to
| do with the conflict started by the creation of the
| modern state of Israel.
|
| The only people who you could reasonably blame besides
| the zionist jews are the other Europeans.
| yyyk wrote:
| Being attacked should rule out 'war of aggression', but I guess
| the phrase seems to have lost any meaning in modern discourse.
| Apparently you can spend all the time calling 'death to X' and
| then get shocked when others take you seriously.
| randomlurking wrote:
| > Being attacked should rule out 'war of aggression'
|
| It usually does. The argument here is about the proportion of
| the response.
| dlubarov wrote:
| There were tens of thousands of Iranian rockets fired at
| Israel just since Oct 7. Hezbollah did the majority of the
| launches, but there's no doubt about who sent the rockets
| or for what purpose. What would be a proportional response
| to that?
| guerrilla wrote:
| You seem to have forgotten that the US attacked Iran first,
| which made this regime even possible in the first place.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > You seem to have forgotten that the US attacked Iran
| first, which made this regime even possible in the first
| place.
|
| Bombing of US marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 was funded,
| and organized by Iran. Just take half day off, and read a
| bit on the role of Islamic Republic in Middle East in the
| past 40 years. I guarantee your stance of "US attacked
| first" will change to the "unclear" at the least.
| etc-hosts wrote:
| That is not clear at all!
|
| The Lebanese Muslims at the time were furious that the
| Sixth Fleet was constantly shelling Shouf. At the time
| the Phalangists, with Israeli help, had recently murdered
| 3500 women and children at the Sabra and Shatila refugee
| camps.
|
| There were and are plenty of grievances to go around in
| Lebanon.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > The Lebanese Muslims at the time were furious that the
| Sixth Fleet was constantly shelling Shouf.
|
| Lebanese muslims are not a monolith. Shia and Sunni have
| very different opinions on things, and the 1983 barracks
| bombing was not done by the sunnis.
|
| Anyway, what I am trying to say is that treating war with
| Islamic Republic today as some sort of consequence of the
| June 2025 is a mistake.
| oatmeal1 wrote:
| 40 years is an interesting cutoff of where to start
| history. Did Iran show any aggression to the USA before
| the Coup d'etat organized by the CIA and MI6?
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| You do know that the people and groups that started the
| revolution in 1979 were basically all imprisoned and
| murdered by the islamists that rule Iran now?
|
| I did not say that Iran started its war in the shadows
| with US in 1983, I just showed that the scope of the
| conflict is not limited to the past two years.
| guerrilla wrote:
| You're moving the goalpost now. This started with US
| imperialism in 1953. Iran wouldn't do what the US wanted,
| so they installed a puppet, like they always do all over
| the world.
| guerrilla wrote:
| It seems you needed more than half a day because you
| needed to go back further than 40 years.
| Saline9515 wrote:
| Yeah and the 1953 coup to overthrow the Iranian prime
| minister and install a US puppet (the Shah) was organized
| by the CIA. We could also add that in the 1980's the US
| was actively supporting Iraq in its war against Iran.
|
| This kind of thinking won't get you very far and won't
| ensure peace in the region.
| qwertox wrote:
| > The president of peace btw.
|
| Europe is to blame, according to him.
| treetalker wrote:
| I know I left that Nobel Peace Prize somewhere ... but I can't
| find it because there's so much America First lying around. I
| know, I'll ask the aliens and the US men's hockey team if
| they've seen it.
| gpderetta wrote:
| surely you mean the coveted FIFA Peace Prize!
| kraussvonespy wrote:
| Laser pointers are to cats as sparkly objects are to Trump.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| covfefe
| jmyeet wrote:
| What I would like people to understand is that this isn't a
| partisan issue. As bad as Trump is, American foreign policy is
| uniparty. Just look at the rhetoric from the Democratic Party
| leadership on an Iran strike. You have the likes of Chuck
| Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries quibbling over the procedure not
| the policy, saying Congress needs to approve action, not that
| that action is belligerent or unwarranted.
|
| October 7 happened under a Democratic president and continued
| essentially unchanged under Trump. Biden consistently lied
| about "red lines" and seeing a ceasefire [1].
|
| The problem here isn't one party or one persident, it's
| America's commitment to imperialism, of which Iran is just one
| aspect. Since WW2 especially there has been so much regime
| change done or aided by the US as well as military action, it
| has it's own Wikipedia page [2].
|
| And what did Kamala Harris promise to change about Biden's
| Middle East policy? Absolutely nothing [3]. It's a big part of
| why she lost and the DNC don't want to admit that so they're
| trying to cover up the 2024 autopsy [4].
|
| Don't fool yourself into thinking anything would be different
| under a Kamala Harris administration.
|
| [1]: https://internationalpolicy.org/publications/the-biden-
| admin...
|
| [2]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
|
| [3]: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/8/8/biden-vs-
| harris-...
|
| [4]: https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-
| gaz...
| patrickk wrote:
| So much of both parties is actually alike, underneath a
| window dressing of differences (eg woke/anti woke), and a
| complicit media which does its best to amplify and brainwash
| people into believing. When it comes to policies that
| actually affect the elites, the deep state military
| industrial complex/intelligence services or financial
| interests, it is a uniparty. Look at how Obama continued the
| war on terror for example, after running on "hope and
| change".
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| I am curious what your plan would be for Obama to extricate
| us from the GWOT and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
| patrickk wrote:
| Several military leaders expressed surprise at how gung-
| ho Obama was with foreign policy regarding the gwot. He
| literally executed an American citizen via drone. He
| didn't even pay lip service to hope and change. Dubya
| also ran on a non-interventionist platform, and Trump ran
| on "drain the swap" and non-interventionism as well.
|
| Anyway this is missing the wood for the trees. The point
| is, the uniparty very much exists, despite the downvotes.
| Foreign policy, bailing out banks, bowing down to the
| military industrial complex are very much remarkably
| consistent uniparty positions.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| I am curious what your plan would be for Obama to
| extricate us from the GWOT and occupations of Iraq and
| Afghanistan.
| rightbyte wrote:
| How about just bailing and having people falling of
| planes? Why would there need to be a good way to
| "extricate" from a ludicrous mess?
| RickJWagner wrote:
| Trump has been publicly mulling over an attack on Iran for
| several weeks. It's been headline news everywhere.
|
| I did not not notice any opinions, one way or the other, from
| other American politicians. Correct me if I'm wrong ( with
| link, of course. )
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I guess we can laud Rep. Jim McGovern [1].
|
| [1] https://archive.is/LvDf2
| RickJWagner wrote:
| Thank you for that, I hadn't seen it.
| techblueberry wrote:
| I'm not sure what would have happened under a Dem
| administration. I'm not sure I'm against action in Iran.
|
| But one the whole like precedents of the Trump
| Administration, was that we were going to ignore foreign
| entanglements, even if they could be perceived as being in
| our interests.
|
| It's wild to me how much Trump seems like Bush 2.0 when I
| think Trump was something of a reaction to Bush 1.0.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| "I'm not sure what would have happened under a Dem
| administration."
|
| Hard to say. Under Obama we got the Joint Comprehensive
| Plan of Action.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| It is amazing that anyone took his campaign claims at face
| value. There's an extensive record of him just saying
| whatever gets cheers/votes/money.
| jmyeet wrote:
| The dirty little secret here is that the Democratic
| establishment and thus many Democratic politicians like
| what's happening. They just don't like _how_ it 's being
| done.
|
| What's they're doing is both bad policy (IMHO) and bad
| politics. Why is it bad politics? Because this military
| action is deeply unpopular and you cannot outflank the
| Republican Party on the right about American imperialism.
| Remember when Kamala Harris promised the "most lethal"
| military? What does that mean? And why?
|
| But hte other reason this is bad politics is for the reason
| you state: it cedes the political ground of being the
| "peace president" to Trump. Memories are short because he
| did exactly the same thing in 2015 eg [1][2] and again in
| 2020 eg [3]. The last one is particularly funny because
| Biden did exactly what Trump promised to do but the Trump
| still beat Biden over the head for it.
|
| There's no consistency in any of this. Trump was never a
| peace president. We knew it was a lie at the time. We know
| it's a lie now. Nobody cares.
|
| But when the supposed opposition party mirrors his policy
| positions and offers no resistance to anything that's
| happening, who are voters going to listen to? The guy who
| talks about peace, even though he's lying, or the guy who
| says nothing about peace and just thinks Trump should've
| consulted with Congress but nothing otherwise should
| change? Or, worse, sometimes Trump isn't being tough
| enough?
|
| Then Senator Joe Biden in 1986 called Israel "the best $3
| billion we make" and if Israel didn't exist we'd invent on
| to protect our interests [4] while Ronald Reagan's
| Secretary of State called Israel an unsinkable aircraft
| carrier in the region.
|
| The JCPOA was a rare W for Obama (who was otherwise the
| Deporter-in-Chief and the Drone King). Trump of course
| dismantled it at the behest of the Adelsons. Did Biden
| reinstate it? Of course not.
|
| The best case for an establishment Democratic
| administration now is to do nothing while promising nothing
| and reversing nothing that ultimately brings in the next
| Trump, just as Biden/Harris did in 2024.
|
| That's the long version of why I say there's no difference.
| In the short term there might be. Even that's debatable of
| course. But long term the ratchet effect only gets worse.
|
| [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/d
| onald-...
|
| [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-
| news/2015/oct/13/donald-trump...
|
| [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-
| news/2020/oct/08/donald-trump...
|
| [4]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-
| clip-joe-b...
| techblueberry wrote:
| What planet do you live on that you think it's a secret?
| It's bright as day. It's why I support the Democratic
| Party. Of course they support this action, it's probably
| the right thing to do.(Though you're right I don't Trust
| Hegseth to do this right. He's like Hubris walking and at
| least one report said the didn't have the support of the
| generals)
|
| One of the reasons I didn't support Trump because he was
| the America First non-interventionist. I'm lamenting the
| fact that Trump's supporters who were betrayed. It's
| Trump who's the one who did nothing and will bring in
| more Democrats, or the other way around.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > The problem here isn't one party or one persident, it's
| America's commitment to imperialism, of which Iran is just
| one aspect.
|
| Iran is as imperialistic if not more. Why you are against US
| "imperialism" but for Islamic Republic's one?
| jmyeet wrote:
| Resisting the imperialist goals of the US itx proxies
| doesn't make you imperialist. It's not only moral. It's
| generaly permissible under international law.
|
| Take for example the UAE, which has been hit by the Iranian
| response, who is essentially singlehandedly responsible for
| the genocide in South Sudan and it does so with the
| blessing of the US.
|
| The UAE arms the RSF using arms they get from the US and
| steal Sudanese gold, which they launder through Dubai and
| Switzerland.
|
| But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything
| Iran has done and is doing is "imperialism" (which, again,
| it is not), how do you even begin to argue "if not more
| [than the United States]"? US imperialism touches virtually
| every country on Earth. Iran at best has regional
| influence.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > It's generaly permissible under international law.
|
| This is false, and you know it. But I will challenge you
| for others to see. Please point me to a statue of the
| international law that makes this "resistance" legal.
|
| > Take for example the UAE, which has been hit by the
| Iranian response, who is essentially singlehandedly
| responsible for the genocide in South Sudan and it does
| so with the blessing of the US.
|
| Interesting. You completely ignored that Saudis back the
| other side (SAF), which committed no fewer atrocities
| than RSF and co. Why do you single out UAE?
|
| > The UAE arms the RSF using arms they get from the US
| and steal Sudanese gold, which they launder through Dubai
| and Switzerland.
|
| I won't argue with that, but this is not the complete
| picture, and the two main warring sides in Sudan are
| supported by US-friendly regimes in the region.
|
| > But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that
| everything Iran has done and is doing is "imperialism"
| (which, again, it is not), how do you even begin to argue
| "if not more [than the United States]"? US imperialism
| touches virtually every country on Earth. Iran at best
| has regional influence.
|
| Two things:
|
| 1. Does the fact that IR's imperialism is regional, and
| anti-US, and not global makes it good?
|
| 2. It is imperialism -- IR through its militant proxies
| suppresses independent development of multiple states in
| the region. Can you explain to me how this is a good
| thing?
| jmyeet wrote:
| > This is false, and you know it. But I will challenge
| you for others to see
|
| Sorry but it's 100% true [1][2][3]. REsisting foreign
| occupation and colonialism is well-recognized in several
| UN conventions.
|
| > Interesting. You completely ignored that Saudis back
| the other side (SAF),
|
| You mean the saudis back the actual government of South
| Sudan and not the rebels who are looting the country? Are
| you really trying to equate the two?
|
| But let's, for the sake of argument, also condemn the
| Saudis in this case. This should convince you that the US
| only cares about selling arms and doesn't give a rats ass
| about genocide. That's my point.
|
| > Does the fact that IR's imperialism is regional, and
| anti-US, and not global makes it good?
|
| No, it makes it lesser. "If not more" was your quote.
| Definitionally, it's not. It's Middle East vs the entire
| globe.
|
| > It is imperialism
|
| It's resistance. Iran up until 1953 was a liberal
| democracy and the only reason it isn't is because of US
| interference, imperialism and adventurism.
|
| > Can you explain to me how this is a good thing?
|
| Resisting the imperial ambitions of a global hegemonic
| superpower is definitionally good.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_resist
|
| [2]: https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/about
|
| [3]: https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/docs/A_RES_2625-E
| ng.pdf
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > Sorry but it's 100% true [1][2][3]. REsisting foreign
| occupation and colonialism is well-recognized in several
| UN conventions.
|
| Colonization and occupation is not the same as
| "imperialism". Please show me where "imperialism" is
| regulated by the international law. Second, resistance
| still has to comply with international laws. So, blowing
| up a bus with kids going to school is not resistance, but
| terrorism.
|
| > You mean the saudis back the actual government of South
| Sudan
|
| The government of South Sudan committed atrocities of the
| same scope as the RSF! Are you letting it slide because
| SAF is official government of Sudan??
|
| > No, it makes it lesser. "If not more" was your quote.
| Definitionally, it's not. It's Middle East vs the entire
| globe.
|
| I would argue it is more.
|
| > It's resistance. Iran up until 1953 was a liberal
| democracy and the only reason it isn't is because of US
| interference, imperialism and adventurism. > Resisting
| the imperial ambitions of a global hegemonic superpower
| is definitionally good.
|
| I see now. As long as it opposes US, it does not matter
| who are the victims of the opposition because the
| opposition is against the US.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| The current Iranian regime is in power thanks to US
| imperial interests. Comical amount of ignorance.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| Does it make Iran less imperialist because of that?
| tw04 wrote:
| FIFA might be the one organization that can go toe to toe with
| Trump I'm corruption. And I mean that in the worst way
| possible. Qatar was using literal slave labor to get stadiums
| built and the organization just shrugged when informed like it
| was just another Tuesday.
|
| He could drop a nuke on Greenland tomorrow and they'd probably
| say they don't want the sport to be tangled in political
| disagreements and if anything the World Cup can help everyone
| heal.
| ck2 wrote:
| if he has no consequences for this, and he won't
|
| it would be very bad to be Cuba right now
|
| considering when the midterms are and about how long it would
| take afterwards to move all the ships
|
| I mean why would he stop with Iran?
|
| All of the US is now a "constitution-free zone"
| no-name-here wrote:
| > it would be very bad to be Cuba right now
|
| Yesterday Trump proposed that the US take over Cuba.
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-
| administration/trump-...
| kraussvonespy wrote:
| Trump is basically a glorified realtor with the intellect
| of a single celled organism.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Do Americans even read or care about Constitution anymore?
|
| Congress declares War.
|
| Even Bush sought out Congressional approval and had a
| resolution passed before invading Iraq.
|
| These guys are speed running the fascist playbook. Disregarding
| laws is one step.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Almost a quarter of Americans are functional illiterate, and
| it's getting worse for new generations
|
| 50%+ have below sixth grade reading comprehension
| watwut wrote:
| This thing is not actually getting worst "for generations".
| By available data, it was improving a lot for generations
| with only minor drop.
| guerrilla wrote:
| What does it matter? There won't be any consequences for it.
| He can just do this now and then later the supreme court or
| congress will say something that also won't matter. The trade
| war wasn't legal, was struck down, yet is still happening.
| watwut wrote:
| > Do Americans even read or care about Constitution anymore?
|
| Supreme court does not, so why should random Americans?
|
| It is not like the high but malleable ideals in it mattered.
| Its only use is to be able to claim in abstract "we have
| these freedoms and protection" while the court system renders
| them void in practice.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| The hope would be if more Americans were reading it, and
| understanding, then they would hold leaders more
| accountable and we wouldn't even get in this situation. The
| founding fathers kind of assumed an educated population,
| even if debating and disagreeing, would come to better
| conclusions. This current method of "lets cut education so
| the population doesn't know what is going on" is really a
| long term plan for the religious right to take over. But
| they are thinking in decades and generations.
| watwut wrote:
| The core issue with constitutional irrelevan e is highly
| educated suprem court justices put in by highly educated
| heretage foundation.
|
| Issue is not lack of education among people, it is
| ideology they sign up to.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _And at the double standards applied to Russians and Israelis
| in their wars of aggression_
|
| To be fair, this is the new standard. Russia has promulgated it
| through its actions in Georgia and Ukraine. China with Tibet
| and Taiwan. America with Iraq, Venezuela and Iran. The old
| rules-based international order is dead, and with it _Pax
| Americana_.
| cobbaut wrote:
| > China with Tibet and Taiwan
|
| What do you mean? China has bought Tibet from the British.
| And what have they done with Taiwan?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _China has bought Tibet from the British_
|
| China invaded and annexed Tibet in 1951 [1].
|
| You may be thinking of Hong Kong, which the British invaded
| and annexed from the Qing dynasty [2] and then handed back
| to China in 1997 [3] under conditions that Beijing
| defaulted on in 2019 [4].
|
| > _what have they done with Taiwan?_
|
| Same as America has been doing with Greenland.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_th
| e_Peo...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hong_Kong
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong
|
| [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Hong_Ko
| ng_pr...
| blell wrote:
| >Same as America has been doing with Greenland.
|
| So, nothing?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _So, nothing?_
|
| No. Threatening to invade a sovereign country, and then
| staging materiel to do it, is not "nothing." At the every
| least, it's something the U.S. (and China and Russia)
| once criticised others for doing. And it's something
| we've each done.
| georgefrowny wrote:
| > the old rules-based international order
|
| At most that was a couple of decades, it's not like that's an
| ancient status quo.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _that was a couple of decades, it 's not like that's an
| ancient status quo_
|
| Sure. The century-long peace following the Napoleonic Wars
| was also some decades.
|
| Our default state, unfortunately, is war. But we sought to
| change that after the horrors of WWII (and the nuclear
| bomb), and it's worth nothing where those noble goals
| succeeded. It's sad that project is over. But something
| being sad doesn't mean it isn't true.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| "worth nothing" -> "worth noting"
|
| !!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Lol. Yes.
| axus wrote:
| The wishes of a small group of people aren't the default for
| the majority. This is why the small group of people say that
| strong leaders for life, with no checks, are normal and
| natural.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _wishes of a small group of people aren 't the default
| for the majority_
|
| In a geopolitical context, the words and actions of the
| powerful are what count. And those words and actions
| currently point-uniformly-towards sovereign borders not
| being a red line.
| axus wrote:
| I'm certain that Persians will remain in Iran, Arabs in
| Palestine, and Jews in Germany for any reasonable number
| of lifetimes we could count. The wishes of a few fascists
| don't outlast their death.
| hearsathought wrote:
| > To be fair, this is the new standard.
|
| It's not. It's the same standard that existed forever.
|
| > Russia has promulgated it through its actions in Georgia
| and Ukraine. China with Tibet and Taiwan. America with Iraq,
| Venezuela and Iran.
|
| Don't forget India with Goa and pakistan, bangladesh, etc.
|
| You are my favorite hindu zionist. I mean you are my
| favourite hindu zionist.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Don 't forget India with Goa and pakistan, bangladesh,
| etc._
|
| Literally down thread (well, up now-I commented before you
| got downvoted) [1].
|
| > _You are my favorite hindu_
|
| You're a recurring racist troll. News at 11.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47195844
| gsky wrote:
| Goa was part of India before colonized and Pakistan is the
| epic center of terrorism.
| kyrra wrote:
| "Peace through strength"
|
| That's the policy being followed here. If you remember back a
| few weeks, Iran killed likely 30,000 of its own citizens. On
| top of that, they will not negotiate about medium and short-
| range missiles or stopping of nuclear production.
|
| A power like that that happily goes after it's neighbors,
| directly or indirectly is a threat to everyone.
| delecti wrote:
| Applying those particular criticisms to Iran and not Israel
| is a special kind of irony given the past ~75 years (but
| especially the last 2-3), and when the latter is presently
| attacking the former unprovoked.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > and when the latter is presently attacking the former
| unprovoked.
|
| Did you miss the whole "axis of resistance" funded and
| driven by Iran?
| delecti wrote:
| And what exactly does Iran feel the need to "resist"
| against?
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| Islamic Republic sees itself as a vehicle to spread
| Islamic revolution around the world.
|
| Just listen to their internal rhetoric, watch who they
| find and why, and it is clear. However, since it's Trump
| who is bombing IR, people will defend the IR regardless
| of what the IR stands for.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| >A power like that that happily goes after it's neighbors,
| directly or indirectly is a threat to everyone.
|
| Is the US a threat because of its actions towards Venezuela?
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Yes
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > I guess Israel can play the "October 7th" card at least which
| was an insane horror.
|
| The islamic republic of Iran has been slaughtering tens of
| thousands of peaceful protesters who don't want to live under
| sharia laws anymore. Hunting wounded in hospitals and executing
| them.
|
| It's obvious there's a movement in Iran that tries to topple
| the islamist regime. In my city, in the EU, I see cars with
| iranian flags and I've seen iranian in exile call for the
| international community to do targetted strikes.
|
| I'm not defending the strikes but let's not make it sound like
| the US is launching nukes on peaceful monks in Tibet either:
| we're talking about evil islamist regime that slaughtered tens
| of thousands of unarmed people a few weeks ago.
| tim333 wrote:
| I was going to say it's false equivalence to compare the
| Russian attack on Ukraine which was peaceful with a newly
| installed democratic leader and Iran which has an iffy
| dictatorship slaughtering thousands of unarmed protestors and
| exporting terrorism all over with aspirations to make that
| nuclear.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| That was obviously exaggerated, think about the planning and
| resources needed to execute a stadium worth of people across
| a country. Not possible in a few days without extreme
| preparation, or bodies rotting everywhere.
| lgregg wrote:
| Pax Romana peace.
| ozgung wrote:
| I don't want to insult you but your president is a populist and
| a TV personality. He is not a policy maker, he is more like an
| actor. So your country went into war mode by changing the name
| of the Department of Defence to Department of War. This was not
| a cosmetic change. This means peace times are over and you are
| in war. Your government acts accordingly.
|
| Since you are still a democracy find those people who make your
| policy decisions. It's not that yellow man.
| gslepak wrote:
| An honest discussion about this cannot be had on this site,
| it's kinda funny how pointless all the comments are here.
| Yours is the closest anyone is allowed to get and I wonder if
| yours will stay up.
| peyton wrote:
| The guy's in the World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of
| Fame. He's been seeking or serving in office for over ten
| years. We all know. It's old ground.
| gslepak wrote:
| No I'm talking about who is responsible for all of this.
| You're allowed to misunderstand (as you did here), you're
| allowed to downvote (as they do to me), you're allowed to
| lie, and allowed to be mistaken. But truth is nowhere to
| be found on Hacker News on this subject. There can be a
| million comments. All of them varying degrees of wrong or
| closer to the money and then removed.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _find those people who make your policy decisions_
|
| Genuine question: who put Iran in their policy portfolio?
| gizajob wrote:
| Make a genuine guess...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| I was hoping someone serious (versus the everything is
| AIPAC nutters) had put thought into it.
|
| Rubio and Walz have been Iran hawks. But I'm not yet
| convinced they were unilateral. Instead, it looks like a
| Rice-Powell alignment of vague interests with enough
| groupthink that dissenters weren't in the room.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| The current Israeli government obviously has a great deal
| of influence in the US government. That much is not
| conspiracy theory. The evangelicals involved in project
| 2025 have a very real interest in middle eastern conflict
| from an ideological standpoint. If you want a cynical
| follow the money villain look no farther than Al Saud and
| friends. Also, this weakens Russia and further restricts
| oil reaching China from anywhere. Every oil feed reaching
| China over water is at this point being curtailed.
| Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough
| interests aligned.
|
| The US president hasn't required a new war resolution
| since Afghanistan. They each keep stretching it farther
| and farther. It cannot be rescinded without a veto-proof
| majority. If there was a veto proof majority willing to
| stand up to the executive, a conviction and removal would
| have already occurred.
|
| The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It
| will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral
| autocracy. It is also worth noting that it only takes
| senators receiving the votes of <7% of the total
| population to filibuster all legislation, prevent
| overriding any vetos, and halt all impeachment trials.
| The fact it has looked like a democracy for so long is
| astounding.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough
| interests aligned_
|
| Correct. But interests need to be animated to have power.
| Who was arguing that this should be a priority, and a
| priority now, who is familiar in the White House?
|
| > _The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided.
| It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral
| autocracy_
|
| This is nonsense.
|
| > _halt all impeachment trials_
|
| False. Senate Rule 193 sets time limits on debate for
| impeachment trials [1].
|
| [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-117sdoc1/pdf
| /CDOC-1...
| galangalalgol wrote:
| You seem to have a singular villain ready to point at. I
| do not see it. The president reportedly thinks whatever
| the last person to speak said. So are you proposing a
| mastermind or simply a catalyst?
|
| As far as vdem goes, Lindberg has recently as much as
| confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy
| status.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will
| down grade the us below democracy status_
|
| I mean, that's interesting from a political theoretical
| perspective. And if you want to put sacred meaning into
| it, sure. I'm not sure most people would take a decade-
| old Swedish institute as a harbinger of whether or not
| America is a demoracy too seriously (versus other
| sources, to be clear).
| galangalalgol wrote:
| You are right that unless the eiu or others follow suit
| it would be less meaningful. On the senate conviction, my
| point is that only 33 senators need to oppose a
| conviction to stop it. Or to let a veto stand. The
| smallest states get the same number of senators. If those
| votes were evenly split, and it was the typical 50-60%
| turnout. It would actually only be 2-3% of the populace
| needed.
|
| I do want to know who the bad guy is though.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _unless the eiu or others follow suit it would be less
| meaningful_
|
| Even if they do it's book reports.
|
| > _On the senate conviction, my point is that only 33
| senators need to oppose a conviction to stop it_
|
| Yes. The bar is high for removing an elected executive.
| That's not a sign of not being a democracy.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Even taking into account that not all small states are
| right leaning, and theoretically there could be 100%
| turnout, we are still talking about a situation wjere it
| takes over 90% agreement among the population to remove a
| president. That isn't a high bar, that is a complete lack
| of accountability. It isn't just removal. The whole
| system was designed by people so terrified of the tyranny
| of the majority that they neglected to forsee such uneven
| populations leading to the potential for a tyranny of the
| minority. The lack of any meaningful consensus for
| judiciary appointments is also a solid sign of
| competitive authoritarianism. But we are getting far off
| on a tangent. I really am intrigued that I'm missing some
| actor or faction. Will you get downvoted for the
| hypothesis? Or have you already replied with it and it
| got shadow blocked?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _wjere it takes over 90% agreement among the population
| to remove a president_
|
| ...no? Majority of the House and two thirds of Senators
| doesn 't require 90%. Nixon still had way more than 10%
| of support in the country when his removal from office
| was imminent.
|
| > _have you already replied with it and it got shadow
| blocked?_
|
| I don't think I've written anything that got shadow
| blocked for many years.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| My best guess at who you mean is Netanyahu or Miller? I
| still think the SA benefits so greatly we should assume
| their advocacy.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| We got too deep in the tree. Nixon could have gone a
| different way. Many of the senators that asked him to
| leave had constituencies that would have supported their
| refusal to convict. The 33 gop senators representing the
| smallest states only represent less than 20% of the
| population, and they usually win by less than 60% in
| elections with turnouts less than 60%. That is where I
| get the 90% from.
| nostrademons wrote:
| The rumor I heard was that high-level Pentagon generals had
| subtly suggested that Trump target Iran. The reason was to
| distract his attention from Greenland. Logic goes that if
| you have a reality TV star who built his brand on being a
| tough guy in the White House, it's far better that he
| attack a theocratic dictatorship that funds a host of
| terrorist organizations and whose country is already on the
| verge of collapse than a NATO ally and fellow democracy
| that didn't do anything to us.
| qup wrote:
| He's been talking about Iran since 2011
| underlipton wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris
| byproxy wrote:
| From where did you hear this rumor?
| ThagH wrote:
| Indeed, the permanent bureaucracies and think tanks have
| advised all administrations:
|
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpgvg
|
| This is bipartisan. The long term goals were to start with
| Libya, Iraq, Syria and then Iran. The latter two required
| Russia to be tied up in another conflict.
|
| They don't explicitly put Iran in their portfolio because
| for Reality TV it is better to be a peace lover.
|
| Now, undoubtedly the Democrats will pretend to complain,
| but Schumer and Pelosi want this, too.
|
| [I am expanding on your comment, not trying to contradict
| anything.]
| oldnetguy wrote:
| I see this as Trump going after governments that were close
| to Russia and China. Which is why he is going after Iran,
| Venezuela and Cuba.
|
| Also there are many countries in the middle east that we
| are friends with which would be happy if Iran falls.
| bell-cot wrote:
| > ...would be happy if Iran falls.
|
| Literally, perhaps true...at least initially. But:
|
| - Take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't
| in 2003 actually worked out for the U.S. and its regional
| friends.
|
| - Iran has 92 million people, very deep issues with being
| able to support that large a population, and very long
| borders. If things really went to crap there, it could
| produce tens of millions of desperate refugees.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov 't
| in 2003 actually worked out_
|
| This is an immensely risky operation. But part of the
| reason for Iraq being a shitshow was De-Ba'athification.
| You don't need to clean house to effect regime change. My
| guess would be we're hoping someone in the IRGC
| disappears Khamenei and a few senior commanders and then
| makes a call to Geneva.
| arw0n wrote:
| This is assuming a coherent national security strategy,
| which is unlikely. We know a lot of generals disagree
| with the attack on Iran, and none of the geopolitical
| experts I trust think it is a good idea, be they
| conservative, realist, liberal, leftist or something
| else.
|
| There's a number of reasons this is happening now that I
| think are more plausible than _American_ interest:
|
| - Saudis want Iran weak as they are primary geopolitical
| rivals. There are deep ties between the Saudi dynasty and
| the Trump dynasty. Without Iranian support, the Houthis
| will have a much tougher time. (Although they should not
| be underestimated regardless. They are not an Iranian
| proxy, but an ally, and field one of the strongest armies
| in the whole region.)
|
| - Israel wants Iran weak, and pro-zionism is a strong
| wedge in American politics. Again, there's also a lot of
| personal business interests involved. Iranian allies and
| proxies are the chief causes of grief for Israel's
| expansionist agenda, and a very credible threat to their
| national security.
|
| - This war conveniently moves the headlines away from a
| faltering economy, the Epstein files, and ICE overreach.
| There's probably hope that it will improve chances with
| the 'war president bonus' in the mid-terms. It could also
| be a convenient cover for and excuse to increase rigging
| in the elections.
|
| Expecting positive regime change after bombing a school
| full of little girls is... naive. This is not how you
| turn an enemy into a friend.
| oldnetguy wrote:
| I know a lot of Americans who remember 1979 and don't
| care if they are ever friends again. I agree, I also
| don't think this is a coherent national security
| strategy.
| mrighele wrote:
| The countries in middle east want Iran to be weak, not to
| fall.
|
| I think that from the point of the neighbouring
| countries, Iran is fine as it is. Israel and the USA keep
| it in check, it is under sanctions, which are both
| beneficial for its adversaries.
|
| If the regime in Iran were to fall, first of all you
| would have repercussions on the neighbors, (refugees and
| the like), and instability. But also, in the longer run,
| the chance of a more better government, which could make
| the country stronger than it is.
| jacquesm wrote:
| AIPAC is a thing...
|
| And now of course you're going to label me an AIPAC nutter,
| but in this particular case I think the evidence is fairly
| plain given the collaboration between the two countries on
| this. If Israel had done this by their lonesome or if the
| US had not involved Israel then you could make the case
| that they reached this point independently, right now it
| looks to me as if collusion is a 100% certainty and that
| the US is executing a foreign policy that will not benefit
| it but that will benefit Israel. It also makes me wonder
| whether this will end up as a Venzuela re-run where the top
| names change but everything else remains the same, just
| with US companies the beneficiaries of the oil, which is,
| besides policy the main driver behind these things anyway.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| ah here come the jews run the USA conspiracy. HN does not
| dissapoint. Well, no I am dissapointed. But not
| surprised.
|
| Reddit and HN have been taken over by leftie tankie
| zoomers and thridies who want to see the West fall while
| then dream of a life in Europe or worse, live here.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You've been uncritically supportive of Israel in plenty
| of other threads on HN already so I'm not sure if your
| exaggeration of my comment should even be taken serious.
|
| Israel has a massive lobbying effort in the United States
| and that's not exactly news, on top of that there have
| been many documented pieces of interaction between Trump
| and Nethanyahu that seem to be evidence that Trump is
| doing a lot of things to please Israel, besides that they
| are actively collaborating on these attacks.
| frmersdog wrote:
| Well, we're certainly not collaborating with West Africa
| to bomb France. Not even the Philippines, Taiwan, and
| Uyghur and Hong Kong dissidents to bomb China.
|
| I mean, it could just be the evangelicals hoping to start
| a holy war that heralds the End of Days. And now that I
| type that out, I have to agree with your implicit
| position that it's definitely the more rational catalyst.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| Even CNN is reporting that this unprovoked attack was
| lined up with a Jewish holiday celebrating the killing of
| non-jews:
| https://x.com/chrisbrunet/status/2027665287982502195
|
| The first thing the US/Israel did was murder 80+ children
| with an attack on a girl's elementary school (warning
| graphic):
| https://x.com/ME_Observer_/status/2027787999409266991
|
| Meanwhile, jewish israelis are celebrating the attack in
| their bunkers:
| https://x.com/SZade15/status/2027695217286189363
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| There is a lot of breaking news, much of it not verified.
| wrt bombing schools, people should be cautious about
| claims like this, this early.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| There's lots of footage already, I just posted one link.
| You can see many dead children for yourself.
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| We should wait for more corroboration before we jump to
| conclusions about circumstance and attribution. In the
| Russia/Ukraine conflict, I've seen Russian's use footage
| and images from other conflicts to claim Ukraine is doing
| something underhanded.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| We've already seen Israel do this over and over again in
| Gaza. We've seen Zionist media try to lie about it, but
| if you've been following what Israel has been doing for
| the past two years, you'll know that this is how they
| operate.
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| These days kinetic wars are accompanied by online
| information wars. What's the harm in waiting for
| corroboration and more evidence in a rapidly evolving
| situation?
| sosomoxie wrote:
| You can follow the reporting here, and this is by western
| outlets that have proven to be unreliable when it comes
| to reporting about Israel: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=iran
| +school&t=brave&ia=news&iar=ne...
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| Those all cite Iranian government sources.
|
| It's certainly credible that US/Israel bombed a school.
| But it's also credible that Iran would lie about
| US/Israel bombing a school. In these situations we need a
| higher standard of evidence than "credible". I don't
| think that's a radical position.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| I find Iranian government sources _far_ more credible
| than Zionist sources. Believe what you want, but this was
| an unprovoked act of aggression following two years of
| genocide and 75 years of ethnic cleansing. It 's crystal
| clear who is responsible for all of the death and
| destruction.
| csomar wrote:
| There is no comparison between Iran and Venezuela. Maduro
| had Cuban guards because his people seem to dislike him
| more than the US; his administration included. Also
| Maduro is hated by both neighboring countries elites and
| peasants. Situation couldn't be more different in Iran,
| there are hundreds of thousands of committed supporters
| in Iran and Arabic countries (watch some videos where the
| Arabs celebrates the strikes at their own countries)
|
| Also in power balance, Venezuela is a joke militarily.
| Iran has the capacity to end calm life in the GCC and
| possibly disrupt oil flows. Really an orange and apple
| comparison. Case in point today, Iran was able to project
| its missile to several countries in a couple hours.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Agreed that you can't compare Venezuela and Iran. But I
| challenge you to check which are the top three countries
| in the world by oil reserves.
|
| Israel needs it, Trump wants it, this was going to happen
| either now or next year. The potential for escalation is
| massive and I sincerely hope that it will not. Iran is a
| problem, but Israel is _also_ a problem and the United
| States is becoming a bigger problem every day. It would
| be nice if the people in charge of this planet could hold
| back from throwing matches into the powder kegs for a
| while.
| csomar wrote:
| Reserves are irrelevant, you can't pump oil from the
| ground at a moment notice and building the infrastructure
| requires long-term stability especially for oil
| infrastructure which is large and hard to protect. Iran
| does x4 times the volume of Venezuela in oil and x10 in
| gas.
|
| The issue with Iran is that it's selling energy outside
| of the US system. This was less of an issue 20 years ago
| when the persians needed to funnel the money back to the
| Western system at a cost so that they can access world
| trade. The situation changed today as they can mostly
| survive on China imports and completely bypass the US
| financial system. Iran has half the exports (in total
| value!) of Tunisia at x8-9 the population. Something
| doesn't add up.
|
| > It would be nice if the people in charge of this planet
| could hold back from throwing matches into the powder
| kegs for a while
|
| That's not how the world works. The relative peace of the
| last 20 years or so was mostly because US hegemony was
| uncontested. This might be no longer the case. Someone in
| the far East will be watching for opportunities.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Reserves are irrelevant, you can't pump oil from the
| ground at a moment notice and building the infrastructure
| requires long-term stability especially for oil
| infrastructure which is large and hard to protect.
|
| Who says these are rational actors. I think it is a bit
| much for coincidence.
|
| > Iran does x4 times the volume of Venezuela in oil and
| x10 in gas.
|
| Until yesterday. We'll see whether their infrastructure
| is going to survive this war.
|
| > The issue with Iran is that it's selling energy outside
| of the US system.
|
| I'm well aware of that.
|
| > This was less of an issue 20 years ago when the
| persians needed to funnel the money back to the Western
| system at a cost so that they can access world trade. The
| situation changed today as they can mostly survive on
| China imports and completely bypass the US financial
| system. Iran has half the exports (in total value!) of
| Tunisia at x8-9 the population. Something doesn't add up.
|
| What doesn't add up is that there are a lot of parties
| that would like to see regime change in Iran, including a
| lot of Iranians. The question always is whether the fire
| that you light remains contained or not and Iran is very
| much not like Venezuela in that sense.
|
| > That's not how the world works.
|
| I'm well aware of that too. But that doesn't change how I
| feel about it.
|
| > The relative peace of the last 20 years or so was
| mostly because US hegemony was uncontested. This might be
| no longer the case.
|
| In no small part _because_ of the idiot-in-charge.
|
| > Someone in the far East will be watching for
| opportunities.
|
| And that's precisely why I think there is a massive
| potential for escalation here.
| csomar wrote:
| > Until yesterday. We'll see whether their infrastructure
| is going to survive this war.
|
| None of their energy infra. was hit and I don't see it
| happening. Hitting their energy infra. will result in
| them hitting the GCC oil infra. This is more likely, in
| my opinion, part of the negotiations. They couldn't agree
| to the terms of their power projection, so they went to
| the field to test it out.
|
| > What doesn't add up is that there are a lot of parties
| that would like to see regime change in Iran, including a
| lot of Iranians.
|
| You are buying into Western propaganda. Not that I know
| about the conditions on Iran and the Mullah popularity.
| It's not possible to gauge that since freedom of
| information is limited there but I wouldn't trust the
| latest campaign either. Only time will tell on this one.
|
| > In no small part because of the idiot-in-charge.
|
| This is where we disagree; though I could agree that the
| democrats will have handled this differently but not
| necessarily in a non-violent way.
|
| > And that's precisely why I think there is a massive
| potential for escalation here.
|
| I still think this one will pass. Though China will
| probably stick to its own deadlines when it's ready on
| its own terms.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Iran has the capacity to end calm life in the GCC and
| possibly disrupt oil flows_
|
| I'm genuinely surprised the mines haven't rolled out, to
| the point that I believe they won't be. (They were-in the
| initial strikes-destroyed or incapacitated, or they never
| existed.)
|
| > _Iran was able to project its missile to several
| countries in a couple hours_
|
| To minimal effect. And every launch exposes a missile and
| firing team to American and Israeli jets flyig in
| uncontested airspace.
| chunky1994 wrote:
| There is credible reporting (Reuters etc.) that ships are
| being turned around, so it does appear that the mines (or
| at least threat thereof) have been deployed. Either way,
| as long as the threat of sinking is alive the strait is
| uninsurable and is for all practical purposes closed.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _ships are being turned around, so it does appear that
| the mines (or at least threat thereof) have been
| deployed_
|
| I'd assume, until further evidence, it's because the
| Strait is an active war zone.
| chunky1994 wrote:
| Fair point, but the IRGC telling ships to turn around, as
| opposed to the ships themselves doing it (as per
| reporting) would imply that the Strait has been blockaded
| in some fashion. It remains to be seen if this is all a
| bluff, I'm just as skeptical as this would be their last
| option, but given the strikes on other Gulf countries,
| the threat seems a bit more _plausible_ of actually being
| real.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That regime has absolutely nothing to lose at this point
| and they will use whatever they've got.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| The voters
| armada651 wrote:
| The moment they made that name change and stated their
| expansionist agenda it finally became clear to me that this
| wasn't just MAGA anymore, this was actual fascism.
|
| Whether you think the current targets are legitimate or not,
| the fact that the U.S. is going to war without seeking any
| democratic approval anymore is deeply troubling.
| Saline9515 wrote:
| This is clearly not fascism, and not very different from
| what the US is accustomed to. Let's not waste the meaning
| of words by throwing them at any occasion.
| mint5 wrote:
| Are you claiming Harris or Biden would have bombed Iran
| like this? That does not sound credible, but if the other
| party wouldn't have attached Iran then this is not
| business as usual, it's the GOP as usual.
| etc-hosts wrote:
| from 2024:
|
| "Harris to Jewish voters: 'All options on the table' to
| stop Iran from going nuclear In pre-election High
| Holidays call, US vice president says diplomatic solution
| still preferable to keep Islamic Republic from the bomb,
| charges Trump won't stand by Israel"
|
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/harris-to-jewish-voters-
| all-op...
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Maybe not exactly but Dems have started many wars, often
| to look tough due to the perception of them being weaker.
| Saline9515 wrote:
| Biden and Harris didn't have any problems shipping tons
| of bombs to Israel, aimed at being exploded on dense
| civilian zones so I don't think that there is are
| dramatic differences between the two parties.
| autoexec wrote:
| What do you think fascism is? What we have is a populist,
| nationalist, racist, far-right regime headed by a man
| that our highest court has ruled can't be held
| accountable for his "official" actions and who acts like
| a dictator (as further evidenced in this case by going to
| war without congress) who uses to the power of the
| government to attack/threaten/suppress his "enemies" here
| in the US. If this isn't textbook fascism you must admit
| that it at least checks a lot of the same boxes
| Saline9515 wrote:
| Well this is not fascism, this is, as you said, a
| populist regime.
|
| The far left loves to categorize everything at its right
| as "fascist". The infamous Berlin wall was the
| "antifascist protection wall". In Yugoslavia, you'd hear
| every day at the radio a rant about the "fascists", even
| though the country was communist.
|
| There are many definitions of what "fascism" is. The best
| I think is to refer to the historical italian fascist
| government, to understand it.
|
| Btw presidential immunity is not fascist, many countries
| have similar laws.
| CrossVR wrote:
| > Let's not waste the meaning of words by throwing them
| at any occasion.
|
| Honest question, but if this is not fascism, then what
| is? Aren't you also wasting the meaning of a word by
| refusing to acknowledge any application of that word?
| Saline9515 wrote:
| There isn't a single accepted definition of what fascism
| is. The USSR and their left-wing allies in Western Europe
| would define everything that wasn't communist as
| "fascist". It still continues to this day.
|
| I'd suggest you read about fascist Italy to get a sense
| of what fascism is. So far I haven't seen Democrats
| repeatedly kicked out of cars in Times Square after
| drinking a bottle of castor oil. Trump said that he
| wouldn't look to be reelected for a third mandate.
|
| The Iran war is mainly a consequence of the Israeli
| influence on US politics; it has nothing to do with
| fascism, and it is in continuity with the previous
| administration.
|
| So yeah, populism likely, a plutocracy (evidenced by the
| role of AIPAC in elections) but not fascism.
| bluescrn wrote:
| But the Iranian regime isn't at all fascist, right?
| autoexec wrote:
| The existence of fascism elsewhere doesn't excuse its
| existence here.
| autoexec wrote:
| > The moment they made that name change and stated their
| expansionist agenda it finally became clear to me that this
| wasn't just MAGA anymore, this was actual fascism.
|
| I'm pretty sure MAGA was always fascism. I mean, all the
| signs were there and people were sounding alarm bells
| almost immediately.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| I an opposed to Trump's unhinged offensive, but let's not
| fall prey to media narrative. Nobody called similar actions
| "fascism" before (or they did, as the word is thrown around
| casually in the US, but then nothing has changed).
| Similarly, when Obama vastly expanded deportations and the
| like, nobody cared.
|
| I don't like Trump. At all. I think he's a terrible
| president on the whole and a shameless opportunist. But I
| don't like one-sided politics and hypocrisy even more so,
| and I dislike hysteria. History and long term trends paint
| us a different picture of current events. Most people's
| horizons are limited to the shallow, tendentious, cherry-
| picked, and sensationalist news cycle, unfortunately,
| regardless of outlet. Should we criticize Trump? Yes. But
| we should criticize all leadership when they do what they
| should not be doing.
|
| BTW, the Dept. of War was the original name from 1789 to
| 1947. Curiously, it was soon after the change to Dept. of
| Defense that people like Eisenhower began to worry about
| the Military-Industrial Complex. That should give us pause.
| The name change conceals the intention, and coincides with
| a hungry imperial war machine that WWII helped bring into
| existence. Recall that Americans were largely isolationist
| before that.
| thiagoharry wrote:
| I don't think the American people can change their country's
| policy oriented toward a constant state of war, aggression,
| and invasions of other countries under the current system.
| This is a constant state policy, regardless of the party or
| the president. So it can be said that the United States is
| not a democracy. Money and capital rule, not the people.This
| can only be changed by a fundamental shift that empowers
| people over capital.
|
| Of course, I agree that Trump is worse because, by removing
| the mask of civility and attacking others without first
| bothering to create propaganda and a narrative about how it
| is for the greater good and justice, he made the plundering
| and crimes faster and more efficient.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _don 't think the American people can change their
| country's policy oriented toward a constant state of war,
| aggression, and invasions of other countries under the
| current system_
|
| Of course we can. People disagreeing with you doesn't mean
| they don't exist.
|
| These are the Senate seats in play this cycle [1]. How many
| of those do you think would be flipped based on _any_
| foreign policy item?
|
| If you're on this thread you pay attention to foreign
| policy. The notion that someone doesn't-not isn't informed,
| but literally doesn't to any degree-is almost more foreign
| than the strangest countries we read about. But the truth
| is most Americans have never ranked _any_ foreign policy
| item as being in their top three issues since the Vietnam
| War.
|
| We could change it if we wanted to. We don't because it's
| not personally pertinent or worse, it's boring. (And, I'd
| argue, because a lot of foreign-policy oriented activists
| are preaching for the choir versus trying to actually
| effect change.)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate
| _elec...
| somenameforme wrote:
| Americans ranked foreign policy as the third most
| relevant issue for them in 2016, tied with immigration.
| [1] It's disingenuous to ignore that both parties have
| traditionally had mostly the same foreign policy stance.
| So you're voting for forever war, or forever war. How can
| it be a deciding factor for voters in this context?
|
| But 2016 was different because Trump was the first
| candidate in some time to run on something even vaguely
| flirting with being anti-war, as he actively called out
| the endless wars of the political establishment, and
| argued that America first should not involve us wasting
| our money bombing countries half-way around the world. It
| was a relatively weak position but even that was enough
| to get 13% of voters to declare foreign policy as their
| key issue, tied with immigration. And Trump ended up
| winning their vote by an 18 point margin.
|
| Anti-war is one of the relatively large number of issues
| that Americans largely agree on, but the political
| establishment makes it impossible to vote for, because
| you'll never find a mainstream candidate running on a
| platform that aligns with public interest. So for
| instance 84% of Americans think that "the American
| military should be used only as a last resort", that
| Congressional approval should be required for military
| action, and so on. [2]
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_pr
| esidentia...
|
| [2] - https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/new-poll-
| shows-pub...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _84% of Americans think that "the American military
| should be used only as a last resort", that Congressional
| approval should be required for military action, and so
| on_
|
| In general, yes. What fraction of Trump voters do you
| think would agree that Trump should face any consequences
| for bypassing the Congress?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| That's assuming the people don't vote for this because they
| want this.
|
| Many Americans have a hero complex. Their national
| mythology post World War II includes them being the "good
| guys" against the "bad guys." That mythology needs a bad
| guy.
| autoexec wrote:
| Trump ran on "no wars" because he was going to spend all
| his focus on America instead of burning taxpayer money
| dropping bombs overseas. I'm sure some people voted for
| him at least in part for that reason. You can argue that
| they should have known he was liar, but there is support
| for it. Also, with the new concentration camps, the
| soldiers in our streets, and the nazi salutes I'm not
| sure the whole "good guys" against the "bad guys"
| narrative is something trump voters care about at all.
| They seem pretty comfortable playing the "bad guys" part
| anyway.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| The Trump admin would sooner drop nukes on LA then cede a
| fair election.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I don 't want to insult you but your president is a
| populist and a TV personality. He is not a policy maker, he
| is more like an actor._
|
| All of them are, even those that haven't had a show on TV.
| nixon_why69 wrote:
| I'm not disagreeing with you but "Dept of War" is ENTIRELY a
| cosmetic change. It's literally just a name. There are
| people, mostly with desk jobs, who really want to feel like
| badasses and they really want the Dept of War. The real human
| consequences of this are unimportant to them and sadly
| unimportant to the rest of us also.
| delichon wrote:
| Cosmetic changes are frequently decisive in politics.
| "literally just a name" discounts the genuine power of
| names.
| nixon_why69 wrote:
| Agreed 100%
| avaer wrote:
| If you go to https://www.war.gov/ it says Department of
| War. The person in charge calls himself the Secretary of
| War. Warfighters are being sent into Iran. Presumably to
| engage in warfare. People are gonna die.
|
| What's cosmetic about this?
| delichon wrote:
| Agree, essentially the Department of War is the
| Department of Defense with a little less makeup.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| It's cosmetic because it is business as usual.
|
| And the DoW was the original name from 1789 to 1947.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Wasn't it originally called the department of war also? If
| anything "department of defense" was doublespeak, as it was
| already primarily for war.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Indeed it was, from 1789 to 1947. It was then changed to
| Departments of Army and Air Force, later the National
| Military Establishment, and finally the Department of
| Defense in 1949.
| trenning wrote:
| Ukraine's TV personality leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy seems to
| be doing alright. Also went into war, but not of their own
| doing, and he has been measured, insightful, aware,
| throughout this whole war.
|
| There's more to it than Trump being a TV show personality.
| Far too complex and insidious than a simple quip.
| epolanski wrote:
| I'm not American.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > And at the double standards applied to Russians and Israelis
| in their wars of aggression.
|
| I would argue that funding Axis of Resistance from Hezbollah to
| Houthis is aggression too. Let's not pretend that IR minded
| their own business, and suddenly was under attack.
| jraby3 wrote:
| Not to mention all the numerous threats to wipe Israel off
| the map by Iran, Hez etc.
|
| Let's not pretend Iran is innocent please. Or Hamas either.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Meanwhile "from the river to the sea" was actual Likud's
| election slogan before Hamas co-opted it. There are
| absolutely elements in Israel - and to be clear, in its
| government, with the ability to and motivation to make it
| happen, not just extremists posting on their forums - what
| are quite happy with the idea of razing both Gaza and the
| West Bank to the ground for settling. And their idea of
| what to do with the people displaced by this ranges from
| collateral damage to a shrug of the shoulders and making
| them someone else's problem.
| hearsathought wrote:
| > Not to mention all the numerous threats to wipe Israel
| off the map by Iran, Hez etc.
|
| That's a well debunked lie told by zionists for decades.
| Nobody cares anymore. Besides it's "israel" wiping
| palestine off the map.
|
| > Let's not pretend Iran is innocent please. Or Hamas
| either.
|
| Far more innocent than israel.
| kyboren wrote:
| > That's a well debunked lie told by zionists for
| decades.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Square_Countdown_
| Clo... The clock was programmed to count
| down from 8,411 days, corresponding to a 2015
| statement by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who
| predicted that "Israel won't exist in 25 years". He
| claimed in his statement that there will be nothing
| left of the Jewish state by 2040. The statement was made
| in the aftermath of a September 2015 nuclear deal
| that had a timeline of 25 years to complete. He
| predicted that it would not take that long for Israel to
| cease existing. Protesters annually chant "Death to
| Israel". The installation was part of a much
| broader demonstration involving over a million
| participants, where anti-Israel slogans and imagery
| were prominently featured.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > That's a well debunked lie told by zionists for
| decades. Nobody cares anymore. Besides it's "israel"
| wiping palestine off the map.
|
| How can you debunk something that the officials of
| Islamic Republic, Hezbollah, and various Palestinian
| fractions were saying out in the open for years? Ddi you
| just make it disappear?
| primroot wrote:
| It's called R2P.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| I support resistance against Zionist terror, that's in the
| best interest of US citizens. They're literally fighting the
| Epstein people.
| nz wrote:
| Just FYI, Chomsky, answering "Is Iran a Threat?":
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M
| epolanski wrote:
| There was literally a puppet regime in the 70s backed and
| promoted by the US.
|
| And since then Iran has always been in US and Israeli
| crossfire.
|
| You also need to try to understand their point of view.
|
| There's no doubt Iran has promoted armed resistance and
| terrorism, don't get me wrong, but ask yourself how much of
| this is about their own safety and defence. It's not 0%, far
| from it.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| You say that like US and Israel hit Iceland or Portugal. Like,
| Iran wasn't source of terror on Middle East, funding terrorist
| groups like Hamas, Hezbolla and Houthi. Like, Iran didn't make
| "death to Israel, death to America" their national idea.
|
| Remind us of Ukrainian rocket attacks on Russian cities, that
| provoked Ruso-Ukrainian war.
|
| You can't not know all of this, so you're either a
| hamas/russian shill or a useful idiot.
| fortran77 wrote:
| I really hope our Government seeks out all these terrorists
| and Iran boosters on Hacker News who work in high tech. It's
| a supply chain risk and none of them should be working.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Israel makes sure Hamas is funded, are they a valid target
| now?
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Look up what the Iranian regime has done to his people and to
| others, including US and European countries, since 1979 and
| you'll understand that the only reason US allies are cautious
| and not fully behind this campaign is that toppling the regime
| means high uncertainty as to what would replace it...
| axus wrote:
| I know some people weren't alive then, but the invasion of
| Iraq started off pretty good for the US... Sort of how Russia
| imagined it's march on Kiev would go (!3) 4 years ago.
|
| What replaced Sadaam was the US, and that went horribly for
| everyone.
| breppp wrote:
| If you know the history of the Iraq War you would know a
| lot of the reasons it went bad was Iranian involvement
| johanvts wrote:
| Ukraine is a democracy with a legitimate leadership that was
| not planning to acquire nukes and has no history of planning to
| remove Russia from the map. To suggest that this attack on Iran
| is the same as the Russian invasion of Ukraine is very
| misguided.
| m_ke wrote:
| You forgot the genocide they have going and the current
| attempt to starve Cuba into submission with their little
| "blockade"
| watwut wrote:
| Ukraine got rid of nukes and it was massive collosal mistake.
| In alternative universe where they win and get territory back
| and get economy on track, they would be 100% warranted to get
| the nukes.
|
| My point is, Ukraine war and the way it evolved shows that
| not having nukes is a bad position.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > My point is, Ukraine war and the way it evolved shows
| that not having nukes is a bad position.
|
| Israel (allegedly? idk) has nukes. Did it stop October 7th?
| Did it stop Iran from firing ballistic missiles?
|
| The war of today is not an open war (the war in Ukraine did
| not start on February 24 2022, but in 2014) where nuclear
| deterrence matters. Nuke will never help if the war is
| waged through proxies.
| kdheiwns wrote:
| To be fair, nuking a piece of land that you claim you own
| and is also just a few miles away and downwind of your
| own citizens is a fairly difficult thing to do. Nukes are
| a great deterrent when it's a place at least 100 miles
| from your borders, and better if even farther. They're
| useless in your own backyard.
| amelius wrote:
| That's probably not the main reason.
|
| Citing:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47157393
|
| > I've spoken with engineers who worked on nuclear
| weapons systems, the consensus is that the public is
| deeply misinformed about how they work, the dangers, and
| the implications of weapons being used. (...)
|
| > The biggest danger of a nuclear weapon is being hit by
| flying debris.
|
| > Fusion airburst bombs of the modern era are incredibly
| clean and radiation is only a risk in a very small area
| (tens of miles) for a short time (days to weeks). (...)
| kdheiwns wrote:
| Your own quotes contradict you. Gaza isn't even 10 miles
| wide. If nukes are safe from over 10s of miles away, then
| nuking Gaza would without a doubt endanger Israel since
| there's no place they could irradiate that would be
| sufficiently far from them.
|
| Plus if Israel thinks it's fine to use them, then
| countries that don't like Israel will be glad to get that
| approval to go ahead with using their own
| amelius wrote:
| > Plus if Israel thinks it's fine to use them, then
| countries that don't like Israel will be glad to get that
| approval to go ahead with using their own
|
| Now you're getting closer to the real reason ...
| Saline9515 wrote:
| By now the nukes would have been useless. You need to have
| a continuous ballistic and nuclear program to manufacture
| new nukes and missiles as the old ones become stale.
| danny_codes wrote:
| Presumably if you kept your nukes you'd built that
| capacity
| etc-hosts wrote:
| That takes money. Ukraine was very poor in 1993. It's
| even poorer now.
| Svoka wrote:
| What an awful take devoid of context. Russia literally
| defaulted in 1998, and 'somehow' kept the nukes.
|
| And today Ukraine is doing quite amazing, considering 12
| years of war. I can only dream what it would be if
| russians didn't steal a generation. Giving up nukes was a
| giant mistake.
|
| Back then, giving up on nukes never was about
| compromising security. In 1993, I remember being full of
| hope and opportunity to live in peaceful world with less
| nukes. It felt like we had our backs by France, UK and
| USA. That was a move full of betrayed optimism, not
| desperation - giving up third world arsenal because the
| future is bright.
| Saline9515 wrote:
| You also need to maintain vectors, at least functioning
| ICBMs, which cost quite dearly. And Russia had much more
| ressources than Ukraine at the time, by the way.
| Svoka wrote:
| Ukraine absolutely had fleet of functioning ICBMs and
| strategic bombers. Unlike russia, Ukraine didn't declare
| bankruptcy.
|
| And pretty sure people who built those ICBMs and
| strategic bombers would have no issue maintaining them.
|
| USA didn't pressure Ukraine into giving up nukes, at the
| same time bankrolling russian nuclear program for
| 'security' reasons.
| Saline9515 wrote:
| Ukraine didn't declare bankruptcy because Russia chose to
| assume 100% of the USSR external debt. Meanwhile, in
| 1998, Russia had a GDP PPP 80% higher than Ukraine.
| Svoka wrote:
| This is why usa had to bankroll russki nuclear security
| program?
| Saline9515 wrote:
| It was a non-proliferation issue, I believe? The same
| could have been said about the pressure for Ukrainians to
| renounce the nukes. I agree that in retrospect Ukraine
| would have been safer with nuclear weapons.
|
| However, a lot could have happened in two decades, and
| Ukraine had to go through many issues typical of post-
| Soviet countries at the time. The risk associated with
| warheads being sold by generals or oligarchs was seen as
| a real one, see for instance:
|
| https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-09/press-
| releases/russi...
| neverminder wrote:
| I think Ukraine would have no problem maintaining it's
| own nuclear program from purely technical perspective,
| considering they have a number of nuclear plants and
| expertise. Plutonium is a byproduct of a nuclear plant,
| they wouldn't even have to bother with uranium
| enrichment.
| dtech wrote:
| Ukraine never had operational control of the missiles in
| its territory
| Svoka wrote:
| I am sure Ukrainians who built said nukes wouldn't have
| much problems figuring it out and building own nuclear
| program.
|
| Instead believing in bright and peaceful future USA,
| France and UK promised. As Ukrainian who lived in Ukraine
| in 90s that felt like being on a frontier of the modern
| world, giving up the nukes. Oh, how full of hope we were.
| epolanski wrote:
| > Ukraine got rid of nukes and it was massive collosal
| mistake.
|
| They couldn't operate them, all electronics were in Moscow
| anyway, nor afford to maintain them or even guard them.
|
| At the very same time Ukraine's corrupted military sold out
| on the black market tens of billions of weaponry.
|
| In your alternate universe, bad actors acquire and reverse
| engineer those nuclear weapons resulting in a world that's
| much more dangerous.
| watwut wrote:
| No it would not be more dangerous then current. Lets not
| pretend Russia is mot more currupt then Ukraine used to
| be. I dont particularly care whether it is Russia selling
| them, Ukraine or USA.
|
| Ukraine would be better off keeping them and all of us
| would be safer.
|
| Because as of now, bad actors (Russia, USA, China) have
| nukes. Ukraine does not and that is making Russia expand.
| Meanwhile USA is run entirely but bad actors.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Iran has been "a week away" from acquiring nukes since
| Netanyahu first claimed it in the 90s.
|
| Not six months ago, Trump launched a strike that "completely
| obliterated" Iran's ability to obtain nukes. And then, either
| because he has the memory of a goldfish, or thinks that we do
| (both are somewhat true), he pulled out "a week away", again,
| at the SOTU. "We must attack Iran to destroy what I told you
| we destroyed last year."
|
| Iran may be planning to do so. But this is just a boogeyman
| being used (again) by Israel and the US.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| It's not the same as all, whatever you think of the Ukraine,
| it used to be part of the Soviet Union. Russia and the
| Ukraine fighting is a "normal" war. The US has absolutely no
| business attacking Iran. It's entirely unprovoked and at the
| behest of the terrorist "nation" of Israel, which also should
| have nothing to do with the US.
| kyboren wrote:
| > The US has absolutely no business attacking Iran.
|
| Iran's theocratic regime just murdered tens of thousands of
| protestors, regularly organizes chants of "Death to
| America", calls the US "The Great Satan", sponsors terror
| organizations all around the region, has (through their
| Houthi proxies) cut off critical sea lanes in one of the
| most strategic areas, is very close to developing nuclear
| weapons (with enough HEU already to build maybe a dozen
| bombs), has extensive ballistic missile magazines and
| expertise, and is working on ICBMs explicitly to reach the
| US homeland.
|
| But oh yeah, this is totally unprovoked and the US has no
| business attacking Iran. Right.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| 1. There's absolutely no proof that happened.
|
| 2. Maybe if we weren't killing millions of Arabs on
| behalf of Israel, they wouldn't hate us.
|
| 3. I would absolutely want Iran to have nuclear weapons
| to put Israel in check.
|
| Israel is a terrorist nation controlling _my_ country and
| Iran is an ally in the fight against them.
| Redoubts wrote:
| > There's absolutely no proof that happened.
|
| Pathetic.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| What I said is factual. We're already seeing pictures of
| murdered children coming out of Iran, just like we did
| with Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon... Not a single shred
| of evidence has been produced to back the claim that Iran
| murdered _anyone_ , let alone tens of thousands of
| people.
| kyboren wrote:
| What you said is a pathetic lie. The regime itself claims
| they killed over 3000.
|
| https://apnews.com/article/iran-protests-memorials-
| chehelom-... https://apnews.com/article/iran-protests-
| crackdown-hospitals...
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2026/02/20/how-
| man... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62v248xkl5o
|
| Honestly I don't even know why I bother. You're not
| debating in good faith.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| I'll save everyone the clicks: there's no evidence of
| Iran claiming they killed over 3000 people in any of
| these articles. There's a _claim_ they said this, but as
| with all reporting about Iran, no proof. Also, 3000 is
| not "tens of thousands".
| kyboren wrote:
| It looks like you saved yourself the clicks.
|
| "The Human Rights Activists News Agency says it confirmed
| more than 7,000 deaths and that it is investigating
| thousands more. The government has acknowledged more than
| 3,000 killed, though it has undercounted or not reported
| fatalities from past unrest." -
| https://apnews.com/article/iran-campus-protests-
| crackdown-54...
|
| '"I would put the minimum estimates to be 5,000 plus,"
| Mai Soto, the United Nations' special rapporteur on Iran,
| said in an interview with ABC Australia. Soto noted 5,000
| dead is a "conservative" or "the minimum" estimate. Other
| credible estimates, she said, indicate as many as
| 20,000.' -
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2026/02/20/how-
| man...
|
| > as with all reporting about Iran, no proof.
|
| In the same way there's no proof humans ever walked on
| the moon, I suppose.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Activists_in_I
| ran
|
| > _the organization is based in Fairfax, Virginia, United
| States_
| kyboren wrote:
| It's constant deflection with you people. You can never
| actually address the facts head on; just deflect with
| "there's no evidence", pivot to "there's no proof", then
| cast aspersions on the most disagreeable messenger.
|
| You have previously intimated that you are also in the
| United States. Should I dismiss your arguments because
| you're allegedly based in the US, too?
| za3faran wrote:
| It's amazing to see the justification done by some people
| to attack other sovereign countries. Did not america
| learn from the fake WMD fiasco with Iraq?
| kyboren wrote:
| > fake WMD fiasco
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-stored-
| highly... The IAEA estimates that Iran
| had 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to up to 60%
| before last year's Israeli-U.S. attacks - enough, if
| enriched further, for 10 nuclear weapons, according
| to an IAEA yardstick. The agency and Western
| powers believe the bulk of that is still intact.
| Washington wants Tehran to give it up.
|
| I seem to have missed the IAEA report on Iraq's 400+
| kilos of HEU.
| za3faran wrote:
| >> *if enriched further*
|
| Keyword there. They said they were not pursuing weapon
| enrichment.
|
| Let's also not pretend that the US and israel care about
| international law, after all, there are arrest warrants
| by the ICC against israeli officials.
| kyboren wrote:
| 60% is very close to 93%; see my comment here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47198239
|
| > They said they were not pursuing weapon enrichment.
|
| There is literally no other reason for Iran to enrich to
| 60% U235 than for weapons.
| za3faran wrote:
| https://youtu.be/MG93nnyxY1g?t=457
| epolanski wrote:
| Jm2c but I wonder how people can be surprised that Iran
| wanted to build a nuclear weapon, especially after the US
| under Trump's first presidency pulled out the nuclear
| deal struck under Obama and cornered Iran even more.
|
| Like do people in US realize that countries around the
| world take notes about what happened to the Libyas and
| Iraqs and many others (like Colombia recently) and see
| that the US will attack other countries with impunity.
| kyboren wrote:
| Who cares what the mullahs want?
|
| The US feels threatened by Iran's nuclear and ballistic
| missile programs and has the military force to stop them,
| probably. Diplomatic avenues bore no fruit. Military
| force is now being used to--hopefully--end the threat
| definitively.
|
| Yes, of course we are aware of what happened to Ghaddafi.
| It's very _en vogue_ to point out the game theoretical
| incentives to develop nuclear weapons.
|
| But seemingly people never bring up South Africa's
| disarmament. And nobody ever mentions that game theory
| also incentivizes the US prevent their adversaries from
| developing nuclear weapons where possible.
|
| Giving up or stopping development of nukes may invite
| attack. Refusing to stop developing them may _also_
| invite attack.
| readitalready wrote:
| The war started in 1948 by Europeans attempting to attack and
| invade Palestine to grab their land to build their
| mediterranean resort homes. The war never stopped. There was no
| surrender documents signed. The foreign invaders have always
| been in the state of war. It's why their colonial outposts are
| required to have bomb shelters.
|
| Not sure why you would consider October 7 an "insane horror"
| when the foreign invaders literally burned children alive in
| 1948 by throwing them into ovens, as happened in the Deir
| Yassin massacre. Or the rape camps of Tantura. There were
| 15,000 innocent civilians killed by the invaders when they
| started this war.
|
| I still can't believe we have to fight Israel's war for them.
| First the Iraq war and now the Iran war.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _war started in 1948_
|
| It's the Middle East. The birthplace of civilisation.
| Everyone can legitimately claim everyone else started every
| conflict in the region because war in Mesopotamia and the
| Levant literally predates history.
|
| At the end of the day I believe in the primacy of the living.
| Crimes committed by and against those alive today are
| infinitely more imporant than those committed by and against
| their ancestors. I've seen folks take this shit back to King
| Herod and the Parthians, and it's not a bad historical
| argument. (The Romans intervened.) It's practically
| counterproductive, however, inasmuch as focussing on blame
| versus harm reduction and prevention is counterproductive in
| any conflict resolution.
|
| One of the separations between the rich and peaceful and the
| poor and permanently warring is in capacities to forgive.
| Japan wouldn't be a better place if they committed terrorist
| attacks against their American occupiers, or decided that
| they needed blood for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And Americans
| wouldn't be happier if we decided to lob a nuke at the
| British in WWII for burning down our White House in the War
| of 1812. (France didn't ultimately profit from the Treaty of
| Versailles.)
|
| > _Not sure why you would consider October 7 an "insane
| horror" when_
|
| No. Don't do this to yourself. I get the temptation. But it
| is the path to becoming a monster. October 7 was an insane
| horror. So were other things. Atrocities aren't signed; they
| don't cancel out, just accumulate.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > The war started in 1948 by Europeans attempting to attack
| and invade Palestine to grab their land to build their
| mediterranean resort homes.
|
| Jewish people lived there for the past two thousands years.
| Hebron massacre by Arabs happened in 1929.
|
| > It's why their colonial outposts are required to have bomb
| shelters.
|
| I think they have bomb shelters to save their civilians from
| bombs.
|
| > Not sure why you would consider October 7 an "insane
| horror" when the foreign invaders literally burned children
| alive in 1948 by throwing them into ovens, as happened in the
| Deir Yassin massacre. Or the rape camps of Tantura. There
| were 15,000 innocent civilians killed by the invaders when
| they started this war.
|
| Interesting how you are totally fine with murder of civilians
| as long as they are the "right" kind of civilians.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Surely this was approved by the Board of Peace. /s
| throwpoaster wrote:
| Do you support the Iranian regime?
| underlipton wrote:
| >I guess Israel can play the "October 7th" card at least which
| was an insane horror.
|
| More than twice as many people died in Puerto Rico during
| Hurricane Maria than on October 7th.
|
| My regard is thus: _lobs less than half an intercontinental
| ballistic roll of paper towels at Tel Aviv_
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| >And at the double standards applied to Russians and Israelis
| in their wars of aggression.
|
| Russians invading Ukraine is NOT the same at all. You lefties
| are running Reddit and now HN. I am done. So done.
| Svoka wrote:
| As Ukrainian, I don't remember launching missiles on russia,
| or, in fact, any aggression towards russia. In its turn russia
| did recognize borders with Ukraine in multiple treaties, and on
| top of that security guarantees promised in exchange of 3rd by
| the size world nuclear arsenal.
|
| Just a quick reminder, that Iranian and Hamas policy towards
| Israel is extermination. Palestine was never recognized by
| Israel or USA. Israel is not recognized by Iran.
|
| So tell me, what parallels do you see between these conflicts?
| Human misery and destruction is hardly a common ground, and
| even in that, scale is incomparable.
| throwaw12 wrote:
| This war shows Hamas was resistance group and Israel was actual
| oppressor and terrorist.
|
| Israel attacked Iran
|
| Israel attacked Lebanon
|
| Israel oppressed and kidnapped Palestinians
|
| World is getting destroyed by couple hundred Israeli and US
| maniacs, by the way, all of whom are connected via Epstein
| sega_sai wrote:
| The take home message from this is that the only way for any
| country to be secure is to have nuclear weapons.
| Matl wrote:
| North Korea looks a lot less unhinged now.
| wiseowise wrote:
| It is still unhinged, but not because of nuclear weapons.
| Ukraine, and now Iran, showed the whole world what happens
| when you don't have a nuclear deterrence.
| somenameforme wrote:
| I think the unhinged rhetoric is, in part, a necessary
| partner of the nukes. Because you need to not only have
| nukes but have your adversaries believe that you won't
| hesitate to use them. If North Korea had nukes, but the US
| didn't believe they would use them, then they'd be getting
| the Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc
| treatment.
| Gare wrote:
| Exactly, the threat of using nukes needs to be credible
| in order to work as a deterrence.
| thrance wrote:
| I mean, nothing unhinged here, nukes are only ever useful
| if other countries believe you will use them when
| attacked. Same thing for North Korea as the US, France,
| etc. (Well, nuclear war _is_ unhinged, but...).
| wk_end wrote:
| The claim has always been made that attacking NK was off
| the table anyway, because they have obscene numbers of
| conventional artillery pointed directly at SK's capital
| and largest population centre, right across the DMZ; even
| the fastest decapitation strike wouldn't have prevented
| Seoul from getting flattened. Nukes definitely don't hurt
| but I'm not actually sure NK needed the bomb as an
| additional deterrent.
| jjk166 wrote:
| North Korea didn't acquire nukes to protect itself from
| the US, it got them to protect its regime from China. It
| began pursuing nukes in the 80s once its original
| safeguard against China, its alliance with the Soviet
| Union, started showing signs it would not be a viable
| long term strategy.
|
| The anti-US spiel is just rhetoric. It helps save face
| when dealing with China, which it still utterly depends
| on, and it goes along with decades of internal propaganda
| lionizing China to its own people. Indeed North Korea
| wants heavy US military presence in the region,
| maintaining its status with regards to China as a
| strategically important buffer state which can act with
| plausible deniability instead of a resource rich neighbor
| with uncooperative leadership.
|
| If North Korea only had conventional forces, what would
| stop China from installing a loyal puppet? The
| international community wouldn't lift a finger, threats
| to South Korea would only further alienate the regime,
| China could bring its full might to bear, the DPRK
| military would have no effective means to retaliate and
| would be more likely to turn on the regime than mount a
| credible defense, and North Korea's own people would
| probably welcome the change which would dramatically
| reduce oppression and increase prosperity. Nukes are the
| only way for a small number of regime loyalists to make
| such an operation too costly for Beijing to justify.
|
| This is also why talks with the US have utterly "failed"
| for decades - there is nothing the US can offer that
| would provide the same security guarantee for the regime
| and the status quo is advantageous to the US for multiple
| reasons: justifying its large military presence in the
| region, justifying its efforts to develop and deploy ever
| more capable ballistic missile defense systems, and North
| Korea not being completely under China's control.
| csomar wrote:
| That doesn't make sense. Even if you are almost certain
| they won't use the nuke, do you really want to take that
| gamble?
| wat10000 wrote:
| NK didn't get nuclear weapons until several years after
| the invasion of Iraq, and it was probably longer still
| before they had a viable delivery system. The nukes
| clearly aren't the only reason they're left alone.
| baxtr wrote:
| Do you believe it's a good thing North Korea has the bomb?
| AbstractH24 wrote:
| If you are the leaders of North Korea, yes
| baxtr wrote:
| What about its people?
| AbstractH24 wrote:
| The leadership in North Korea's clearly doesn't
| prioritize them.
| Matl wrote:
| The fact that NK possess nuclear weapons strongly
| discourages external players from attacking it. It does
| not in any way change the tools NK has at its disposal
| domestically.
|
| If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we
| would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf
| of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale.
| lyu07282 wrote:
| > If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we
| would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf
| of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale.
|
| You think the US would just leave them alone as a
| communist, sovereign country without nukes, bordering
| china???
| Matl wrote:
| I think any US intervention in NK would not be to help
| the people of NK, that's all.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Yes. Dictatorships suck, but what sucks more is a civil
| war powered by foreign governments doing a proxy war.
|
| Syria is the prime example of this. A major reason for
| the civilian slaughter was foreign intervention trying
| regime change.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Dictatorships suck, but what sucks more is a civil war
| powered by foreign governments doing a proxy war_
|
| It's a macabre study. But one could honestly argue that
| several countries in the latter category's populations
| are better off than North Korea's.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Maybe after the civil war, certainly not during it. If I
| had to pick where to live, I'd pick North Korea over
| Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a
| dictatorship than an active war zone. (This isn't me
| saying I want to live in NK, I don't).
|
| But I'd also point out that a lot of what makes it really
| suck to live in the worst places in the world isn't often
| the government but rather the international
| relationships. Turkey has a particularly brutal
| government, but it's Nato and EU ally status means that
| the civilians enjoy modern trade and travel.
|
| The worst times to be in NK was the 90s when there was an
| ongoing famine and the US refused to lift sanctions
| thinking it'd spark a civil war that overthrew the
| regime. It didn't.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I 'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because
| it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an
| active war zone_
|
| To each their own. I wouldn't. In part because once
| you're in North Korea, you're not getting out. That isn't
| the case for Ukraine, Syria or any of the other war-torn
| countries.
| cogman10 wrote:
| It'd depend on my status. There are a lot of people who
| can't just get out of Ukraine or Syria. The average
| citizen in Syria had no means to just flee. I'd assume in
| my above scenario that I'm one of the masses that can't
| escape.
|
| NK does actually allow people to leave, mostly to china
| and mostly after they attain a high social class. A
| decent number of tourists, including US citizens, go on
| tours of NK.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _NK does actually allow people to leave, mostly to
| china and mostly after they attain a high social class_
|
| I didn't know this. Source? I thought Pyongyang controls
| its elites' movement even more strictly than its
| commoners'.
| cogman10 wrote:
| [1] Don't get me wrong, movement is highly restricted,
| but it's not impossible. AFAIK, it's mostly afforded to
| the elites in NK.
|
| I guess I shouldn't have written leave, but to visit
| other countries. I don't think you can change your
| citizenship.
|
| [1] https://www.youngpioneertours.com/can-north-koreans-
| travel/
| etc-hosts wrote:
| If you are a male between the ages of 17 and 55, you are
| not getting out of Ukraine right now.
| walletdrainer wrote:
| >I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's
| a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war
| zone
|
| You can live a perfectly normal life in Kiev. It's not
| exactly an active war zone, you see luxury cars worth
| hundreds of thousands of dollars on every corner. You can
| buy bottles of Petrus in 24 hour supermarkets and eat
| decent food at countless fancy restaurants.
|
| Goodwine in Kiev will also put US luxury grocers to
| shame. Ukraine might be at war, but the quality of life
| is hardly bad.
| samrus wrote:
| If you had to live in gaza or north korea right now,
| which would you choose?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If you had to live in gaza or north korea right now,
| which would you choose?_
|
| Me as me? Gaza. Because I'd get out. That's a bullshit
| answer, though, so I'll answer as a local. And there,
| it's honestly a coin toss because Gaza is possibly the
| shittiest war zone outside Africa right now. But if you
| said North Korea or Syria during its civil war? North
| Korea or Myanmar? I'm going with not Pyongyang.
|
| The only one where I'd honestly choose North Korea hands
| down is Sudan, because that's the one nobody really gives
| a shit about which means it's going to go on forever.
| brador wrote:
| How would you get out? It's impossible. Every exit is
| shut.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How would you get out? It's impossible. Every exit is
| shut._
|
| Of course it isn't, it's entirely porous to the IDF. I'm
| an American citizen. If I were teleported to Gaza I'd
| probably be fine. At material risk of being fucked up.
| But I'd take my chances there over being an American
| teleported to North Korea.
| sph wrote:
| Rockets can't tell what citizenship you are. The fact is
| no one is launching rockets onto North Korea.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Rockets can't tell what citizenship you are_
|
| Sure. And yes, it's risky. But there are two million
| people in Gaza and half a dozen to a dozen, on average,
| being killed each day. If I, literally I, were teleported
| into Gaza, my primary operational concern would be
| avoiding Hamas. (My primary operational goal, getting to
| an internet-connected device.)
|
| > _no one is launching rockets onto North Korea_
|
| Correct, their security forces are undisrupted.
| brador wrote:
| Any attempt to walk towards a controlled point or border
| will get you shot inside 2-3km. Your passport will be
| removed from your body before it is destroyed. You were
| never there.
| thrance wrote:
| You're making the mistake of correlating these proxy wars
| with any later improvements in these countries' living
| conditions. War is always detrimental to quality of life.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _You 're making the mistake of correlating these proxy
| wars with any later improvements in these countries'
| living conditions_
|
| ...nobody argued the proxy wars were _good_ for those
| countries. Just that if you 're turned into a random
| local in one of those theatres, chances are you're better
| off a decade or two later than if you're turned into a
| random North Korean.
| baxtr wrote:
| _> Dictatorships suck, but what sucks more is a civil war
| powered by foreign governments doing a proxy war._
|
| Are you sure about this part?
| cogman10 wrote:
| Absolutely. No question.
|
| War isn't glamorous. It's mechanized death and torture
| destroying communities, families, and loved ones. And
| when it's powered by foreign governments, it's worse.
| Because the two colliding sides are armed to the gills
| with the best weapons in murder along with mercenaries
| and no oversight.
|
| Living in a dictatorship is hard but doable, There are
| literally generations of people that have survived and
| thrived in that sort of an environment. It's not
| preferable, for sure, but you still have your family,
| friends, and neighbors. None of them are trying to
| actively kill you. So long as you follow the rules, life
| in a dictatorship is generally predicable and the odds of
| the state making you specifically an example are low.
| baxtr wrote:
| So if a dictatorship decides to invade a neighboring
| democratic country, the people there should not fight and
| let them take over, because war is worse than
| dictatorship, right?
| cogman10 wrote:
| A authoritarian regime starting wars isn't one I want to
| live in either. That's why I don't want to live in
| Israel.
|
| Iran has had civil unrest over the last year, they
| weren't in the position politically to be doing much of
| anything to the "democracy" of Israel.
|
| The entire reason for the US Israel attack on Iran is
| because of that civil unrest, not because Iran was a
| threat, but because both nations see an opportunity to
| install a puppet government that does their bidding.
|
| What remains to be seen is if Russia sees a similar
| opportunity and we end up with another Syria.
| baxtr wrote:
| You evade answering a simple question.
|
| It's because your logic is flawed. It doesn't hold up a
| very simple scrutiny test.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Sorry if my answer seemed evasive. I was reading into
| your question something not stated
|
| > the people there should not fight and let them take
| over, because war is worse than dictatorship, right?
|
| No, I think the people should fight back, obviously. A
| country being actively invaded has a right to fight back.
| The war isn't their choosing and laying down arms is a
| mistake because captured civilians are rarely treated
| well after a war.
|
| I'm specifically talking about an established
| dictatorship vs war. Specifically, as I said, a civil war
| which is a proxy war for foreign agents. Starting a war
| to end a dictatorship is bad. A dictatorship starting a
| war is bad. However, a dictatorship not starting wars is
| ultimately a better place to live vs anywhere under and
| active civil war.
| gkoz wrote:
| The only people who thrive in a dictatorship are its
| enforcers. And by the way a dictatorship needs quite a
| lot of them. That's how, decades after its fall, you get
| voices saying it wasn't all that bad, there were some
| nice things actually, or we should do it again.
|
| And also your neighbors absolutely will sell you out.
| cogman10 wrote:
| I agree. A foreign powered civil war is worse than that.
|
| Thriving in a dictatorship, even not as an enforcer, is
| possible. It's a worse life in general but still a life
| you can live.
|
| Generally speaking, the only life that truly sucks in a
| dictatorship is if you become an enemy of the state. That
| doesn't generally apply to all citizens because, if it
| did, a dicatorship would quickly end in revolt. That is
| the theory behind strong sanctions. It's believed that if
| you starve a nation eventually the citizens revolt. The
| problem is it takes little resources to keep people
| happy, ultimately.
| Matl wrote:
| I believe that it is a rational step they have taken as an
| act of deterrence.
|
| I don't believe any country having nuclear weapons is good.
| nkrisc wrote:
| It's good for them. That's the point they're making. All
| this shows that for many countries nuclear proliferation is
| the way to guarantee their safety.
| baxtr wrote:
| Who is "them"? Definitely not the people.
|
| "safety" for whom? Definitely not the people. They
| starve.
| samrus wrote:
| The people arent being pppressed by the bomb, but by
| their leaders. The odea that the US would liberate all
| peoples from tyranical rulers is naive. The US routinely
| installs and supports tyrants who allign with their
| geopolitical goals. Pol pot, pahlavi, pinochet, marcos,
| suharto, seko, the banana republics. Nukes didnt enable
| those guys, the US did
| lenkite wrote:
| > "safety" for whom? Definitely not the people. They
| starve.
|
| Better to have privation than to get bombed and massacred
| in large numbers.
| throwaway421334 wrote:
| Was it better for jews to starve in concentration camps
| rather than to get bombed by the allies? If not, what's
| different this time?
| lenkite wrote:
| My bad - I didn't know Iran was starving Jews to death in
| concentration camps. Can you point me to a source ?
| Cyph0n wrote:
| They love to project the past crimes of the West onto the
| East as a justification for their current crimes.
| throwaway421334 wrote:
| If bombing Germany was a crime, then call me the world's
| greatest war crime supporter.
| qup wrote:
| This is a comment sub-thread about DPRK
| nkrisc wrote:
| Safety for whomever controls the nukes, whether
| autocratic (Iran) or democratic (Ukraine).
|
| Russia would not have attacked Ukraine if they still had
| their nuclear weapons and Iran wouldn't be under attack
| now if they had them too.
|
| I'm not saying whether it's goods or bad that any or
| specific countries have nuclear weapons, that's beside
| the point. The point is that this attack sends the signal
| that the only way to guarantee your safety is to have
| them.
| samrus wrote:
| Theyve had the bomb for a while and south korea still
| exists and is thriving. I have seen alot of batshit insane
| talk from them, but no real negative consequences for any
| other country. So it hasnt really been a negative for
| anyone. I dont think theyll use it first either because
| they know theyll be glassed if they do
|
| Now if they didnt have the bomb, i dont think they would
| have lasted this long. I think the US would have gone and
| "democratized" them to smithereens a while ago.
| Peanuts99 wrote:
| South Korea has the capability to build nuclear weapons
| very quickly if needed, they're a nuclear threshold
| state.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Nuclear weapons have a very brief transition from
| "everything is fine and nothing bad has happened" to
| "we're completely fucked." The fact that nothing has
| happened _yet_ isn't very reassuring to me with all the
| ways things can go wrong. The threat of retaliation
| certainly puts a damper on a first strike, but there's
| always the possibility of a mistake, someone feeling
| backed into a corner, or not believing the consequences,
| or just going a little crazy. The more countries that
| have them, the more likely this becomes.
| itishappy wrote:
| Kinda? I can't help but notice that I'm not particularly
| worried about my friends or family being sent off to fight
| North Korea anytime soon.
| _heimdall wrote:
| How does that factor in here right now? We haven't used or
| threatened to use nukes, and at least the public case made is
| in part that Iran is trying to get nukes and shouldn't.
|
| I say "public case" specifically here, I don't buy that
| justification but it is still the one being used.
| knorker wrote:
| How does it factor in? How doesn't it?
|
| If Iran had deployable nukes, would they get invaded?
|
| Name a country that got bombed to credibly destroy the
| government, and had nukes. I'll wait.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If Iran had deployable nukes, would they get invaded?_
|
| Honestly, maybe? Like if we had high confidence we knew
| where they were, and Israel consented to the attack, I
| could absolutely see the U.S. trying to take it out in
| storage.
|
| If Iran had a nuke that could hit the U.S., I'd say no. But
| that's a stretch from "deployable nukes."
|
| > _Name a country that got bombed to credibly destroy the
| government, and had nukes_
|
| Pedantically, Ukraine.
| _heimdall wrote:
| It likely wouldn't be kinetic, but nukes didn't stop us
| from chipping away at the Soviet Union.
|
| I could be wrong, but I don't buy the public story that
| this is about regime change. You don't topple a government
| with air superiority alone, and you don't do it in a matter
| of days. I also don't expect the US would be okay letting
| the Iranian people pick who comes next. We have a history
| of installing puppets and that similarly doesn't happen
| only via bombing runs.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| And not to negotiate with the US in good faith.
| jaredklewis wrote:
| Not sure Iran was doing that, but for sure Maduro wasn't.
|
| Not sure it affects the outcome.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I don't understand Iran, Hezbollah's and the Houthis'
| patience with the US actually. It's absolutely shocking.
| After the US betrayed ALL of it's own fucking allies, in what
| world does it make sense to negotiate with them?
|
| The Houthis are still "threatening" to do things today after
| already being decimated and Hezbollah's strength more than
| halved.
|
| I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were
| minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war
| with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas
| was doing on October 7th. They look even more naive than
| Europeans at this point.
| bawolff wrote:
| Rational negotiations have to be based on the relative
| power of the parties.
|
| It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US
| because the alternative was a war they had no chance to
| win. Arguably it also made sense for them to not come to an
| agreement because USA wanted concessesions the Iranian
| regime probably couldn't do while still staying in power
| given how weak they are domestically.
|
| > I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them
| were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total
| war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what
| Hamas was doing on October 7th.
|
| Israel's ability to divide and conqour its enemies here has
| been pretty impressive.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US
| because the alternative was a war they had no chance to
| win.
|
| They have no chance of winning no matter what. At least
| inflict some damage on your enemy while you die like
| Hamas chose (although I disagree with the fact that they
| chose that for a lot of innocent people too.)
|
| The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran,
| alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b)
| don't fight and cease to exist.
| delusional wrote:
| > The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone
| Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist
| and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
|
| Oh boy, I see we learned nothing from Afghanistan. The US
| will eventually leave you alone, There will be a power
| vacuum, and the local warlord will rise to that
| opportunity.
|
| The "military operations" don't end in decisive vistory.
| They end with death and destruction for the young men
| sent into battle, and more enemies in the surrounding
| areas.
| guerrilla wrote:
| The US hasn't left Afghanistan alone. They were driven
| out of the country by force. They are still attacking it
| in multiple different ways and will continue to do so
| until they are defeated. Time did not end when the US was
| kicked out. They aren't just going to give up their
| goals.
| delusional wrote:
| I do not understand what argument you are trying to make.
| Nowhere do I say that time stands still or that the US
| doesn't still have a policy for Afghanistan. I'm saying
| that the US (and her allies, my country among them), with
| their war machine the likes of which has never been seen,
| could not bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan. Once
| we left, and we will always have to leave eventually, the
| existing structures of opression once again asserted
| themselves.
|
| My country and my Government, sent people from my
| generation down there to die. My countrymen died in that
| war, and the only thing we got out of it was more enemies
| in the region. The Afghan is still getting persecuted for
| styling their beard wrong, and the Afghan woman is still
| getting opressed. We have nothing to show for that
| sacrifice.
|
| I see no reason to believe the same thing isn't going to
| happen in Iran.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > Once we left, and we will always have to leave
| eventually, the existing structures of opression once
| again asserted themselves.
|
| The US keeps coming back is what I'm saying. The US was
| kicked out of Iran in 1953. That's what all this is
| about. They will do the same to Afghanistan eventually.
| That's what I meant by time didn't stop. The Taliban
| isn't safe by any means. It's just a temporary reprieve.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > At least inflict some damage on your enemy while you
| die like Hamas chose (although I disagree with the fact
| that they chose that for a lot of innocent people too.)
|
| Ultimately? If the people who are going to kill you were
| elected into power by those "innocent people", why would
| you not lash out at them too? Some twisted sense of
| morality or taking the high road?
| guerrilla wrote:
| I don't know what you're talking about. It sounds like
| you might be saying Israelis who elected Likud (and the
| supporting parties) are not innocent. If that's what you
| mean, then I agree, but that wasn't what I was referring
| to.
|
| I was speaking of the Gazans who originally elected Hamas
| to protect them but where Hamas eventually decided to
| sacrifice masses of them to achieve some of their goals.
| They knew what would happen and did it anyway, without
| the people's consent.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _in what world does it make sense to negotiate with
| them?_
|
| The world in which America is a military superpower.
|
| > _if any of them were minimally rational, they would have
| all gone to total war with Israel and the US_
|
| They have been. They've been getting levelled. If the U.S.
| can staunch the flow of arms to the Houthis, they'll become
| irrelevant, too.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > The world in which America is a military superpower.
|
| No, you missed my point. Iran dies no matter what
| happens. Better go down after eliminating Israel, taking
| out a huge % of the world's oil supply and banging up
| some Americans. Instead they were extremely restrained,
| squandering their capacities.
|
| > They have been. They've been getting levelled. If the
| U.S. can staunch the flow of arms to the Houthis, they'll
| become irrelevant, too.
|
| Incorrect.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Better go down after eliminating Israel, taking out a
| huge % of the world 's oil supply and banging up some
| Americans_
|
| One, they tried. They don't have the capability. Two,
| that means more Iranians die. Cultures that choose
| pointless vengeance over pragmatic survival tend to get
| weeded out.
|
| > _Incorrect_
|
| Which part, why and based on whom?
| Cyph0n wrote:
| The Iranians are pragmatic. Look beyond their relationship
| with the US. There are other state actors that Iran wants
| to remain in good relations with.
|
| They understand that a defensive war is not the same as an
| offensive war. Besides, going on the offensive isn't
| something they - as a regional power - have the firepower
| or diplomatic "street cred" for.
|
| They are already painted as a so-called irrational actor.
| Doing something reckless will only prove their detractors
| right.
|
| The other part to this is keeping the negotiation door
| open. The idea is to demonstrate to other state actors that
| they are cool headed & rational - even in wartime
| conditions.
| csomar wrote:
| Houthi and Huzb do not have the organized armies to wage
| long-term war where they conquer territories. Their game
| plan is long term annoyance (at high casualty costs) and
| co-existence within a "neutral" state that provides cover
| and logistics for them.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > Houthi and Huzb do not have the organized armies to
| wage long-term war where they conquer territories.
|
| Hezbollah did. They did it before and they were predicted
| by all analysts to be able to do it again, which is why
| Israel took the route they did with the espionage,
| assassinations and terrorism instead of confronting them
| on the battlefields.
|
| The Houthis also _are doing that right now_.
| underlipton wrote:
| Could very well be that, on a diplomatic level, they're far
| more reasonable and forgiving than we've been lead to
| believe. Maybe in order to justify an aggressively
| adversarial posture against them and their interests.
|
| But that's hard to grok without corroborating evidence.
| Like maybe an analogous social dynamic where the American
| mainstream maintains a hostile posture towards a particular
| ethnic group, stereotyping them as violent and irrational
| and criminals and parasites, and doing things to them that
| have triggered sustained, armed uprisings in other times
| and places, but who, in fact, have historically and in-
| aggregate been steadfast in a commitment to non-violent
| resistance, integration, and endurance of oppression.
|
| Safe to say that this is the first time America's ever
| encountered that kind of thing, though, so I guess that we
| can be somewhat forgiven for not recognizing it.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| > Could very well be that, on a diplomatic level, they're
| far more reasonable and forgiving than we've been lead to
| believe.
|
| If you have been following Iran over the past two years
| (and even before), you would know that this is
| empirically true and not just a hypothetical. American
| propag- sorry, media does its job well.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| No such thing as total war with the USA. Without the means
| to nuke the USA out of existence, actually engaging them is
| suicide. Even if by some miracle you start winning, they
| can just nuke you back to the stone age, thereby ending the
| conflict.
|
| Better to play the long game, corrupt them from within and
| wait for them to destroy themselves.
| lakrici88284 wrote:
| The US demands were clear - no nuclear capability whatsoever,
| not really a hard demand to meet if you're coming "in good
| faith".
|
| Iran decided to play stupid games and found out.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Israel has a lot of nukes (while they pretend they don't) and
| that does not prevent them from being attacked.
| xrd wrote:
| It probably prevents armed warships from attacking them. It
| doesn't, as you correctly point out, prevent guerilla
| warfare.
| learingsci wrote:
| Thanks for pointing this out. I hear people say this over and
| over, if Iran only had nukes it would be safe to continue
| propagating terrorism as it has been doing. It's obviously
| wrong, as you point out. Russia has nukes. India has nukes.
| Having nuclear weapons doesn't mean you can do whatever you
| want, if anything it brings a higher level of scrutiny. A
| nuclear Iran would be a serious problem for many and that's
| why it's so critical to make sure that doesn't happen, not
| just for Israel but the entire planet.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Maybe it is scale.
|
| Maybe Nukes do not prevent terrorism, or gorilla warfare.
|
| Having Nukes would prevent a large strike from another
| state, like what US just did.
|
| Nobody is doing this large scale of bombing on any of the
| nuclear powers.
| someotherperson wrote:
| There's only one country that has repeatedly attacked its
| neighbors and has decided to occupy and seize land from two
| of them while actively calling for and carrying out strikes
| in many others _all in the last two years_.
|
| It ain't Iran.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| Iran effectively controlled Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and
| Iraq through its proxies and puppet regimes. Right, it
| didn't annex territory, but it complete subjugated these
| countries and their population to their goals.
| twistedpair wrote:
| This is part of why we help defend Israel, to constrain wars
| to conventional means.
|
| In the first Gulf War, we placed the Patriot batteries around
| Israel, as they said that if an Iraqi biological or chemical
| SCUD attack hit Tel Aviv, they would vitrify Baghdad.
|
| Having nukes doesn't prevent _anyone_ from attacking you, but
| it does constrain those attacks to conventional means. And
| what if you pulled off a decapitation attack against Tel
| Aviv? Well their fleet of nuclear capable subs would make you
| pay.
| someotherperson wrote:
| So should the US defend North Korea in case of a conflict
| with South Korea?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| "In the world of strategic studies, there has been a return to
| 'theories of [nuclear] victory'. Their proponents draw on the
| work of past scholars such as Henry Kissinger, who wondered in
| his 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy if extending
| the American deterrent to all of Europe at a time when the
| threat of total destruction hung over the US itself would
| actually work: 'A reliance on all-out war as the chief
| deterrent saps our system of alliances in two ways: either our
| allies feel that any military effort on their part is
| unnecessary or they may be led to the conviction that peace is
| preferable to war even on terms almost akin to surrender ... As
| the implication of all-out war with modern weapons become
| better understood ... it is not reasonable to assume that the
| United Kingdom, and even more the United States, would be
| prepared to commit suicide in order to defend a particular area
| ... whatever its importance, to an enemy'.
|
| One of the recommended solutions was to bring tactical nuclear
| weapons back into the dialectic of deterrence extended to
| allied territories, so as to give US decision makers a range of
| options between Armageddon and defeat without a war. Global
| deterrence was 'restored' by creating additional rungs on the
| ladder of escalation, which were supposed to enable a sub-
| apocalyptic deterrence dialogue -- before one major adversary
| or the other felt its key interests were threatened and
| resorted to extreme measures. Many theorists in the 1970s took
| this logic further, in particular Colin Gray in a 1979 article,
| now back in fashion, titled 'Nuclear Strategy: the case for a
| theory of victory'.
|
| ...
|
| In 2018 Admiral Pierre Vandier, now chief of staff of the
| French navy, offered a precise definition of this shift to the
| new strategic era, which has begun with Russia's invasion: 'A
| number of indicators suggest that we are entering a new era, a
| Third Nuclear Age, following the first, defined by mutual
| deterrence between the two superpowers, and the second, which
| raised hopes of a total and definitive elimination of nuclear
| weapons after the cold war'" [1].
|
| I think the chances we see a tactial nuclear exchange in our
| lifetimes has gone from distant to almost certain.
|
| [1] https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear
| wat10000 wrote:
| Now that the last generation with direct experience of the
| Nazis is leaving us, it seems like the populace is forgetting
| the horrors of that time. That also happens to be the last
| generation with direct experience of nuclear weapons used in
| war.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Who will be launching the tactical nuclear attacks? The US is
| no longer equipped with tactical nukes, as I understand it
| (corrections welcome).
| jmyeet wrote:
| I just want to expand on this.
|
| 1. According to the US and Israel, Iran has been a week away
| from having nuclear weapons for at least 34 years [1];
|
| 2. It's quite clear Iran could've developed nuclear weapons but
| chose not to. I actually think was a mistake. The real lesson
| from the so-called War on Terror was that only nuclear weapons
| will preserve your regime (ie Norht Korea);
|
| 3. Israel is a nuclear power. It's widely believed that Israel
| first obtained weapons grade Uranium by stealing it from the US
| in the 1960s [2];
|
| 4. In a just world, people would hang for what we did to Iran
| in 1953, 1978-79, the Iran-Iraq War and sanctions (which are a
| sanitized way of saying "we're starving you"); and
|
| 5. The current round of demands include Iran dismantling its
| ballistic missile program. This is because the 12 day war was a
| strategic and military disaster for the US and Israel.
|
| Israel has a multi-layered missile defence shield. People
| usually talk about Iron Dome but that's just for shooting down
| small rockets. Separate layers exist for long-range and
| ballistic missiles (eg David's Sling, Arrow-2, Arrow-3). In
| recent times the US has complemented these with the ship-borne
| THAAD system.
|
| Even with all this protection, Iran responded to the unprovoked
| attacks of the 12-day war by sending just enough ballistic
| missiles to overwhelm the defences, basically saying "if we
| have to, we can hit Israel".
|
| Many suspect that the real reason the US negotiated an end to
| the 12 day war was because both Israel and the US were running
| cirtically low on the munitions for THAAD and Israel's missile
| defence shield. You can't just quickly make more either.
| Reportedly that will take over a year to get replacements.
|
| Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is
| about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more
| widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect
| that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so
| desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-
| state like Somalia or Yemen.
|
| I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but
| when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do
| countries have?
|
| [1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-
| of-n...
|
| [2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-
| grade-...
| flyinglizard wrote:
| Yes, because "what choice did Iran have" other than:
|
| 1. Routinely calling for death to Israel and America, turning
| it into part of the national curriculum and sowing hate
|
| 2. Funding, training, supplying and directing multiple
| violent proxy organizations around the region which attacked
| Israel and undermined their own countries (Hezbollah in
| Lebanon and Syria, Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in West Bank and
| Gaza, other organizations in Iraq)
|
| 3. Enriching Uranium to clearly non-civilian grade in
| multiple militarily hardened facilities;
|
| 4. Directly attacking multiple Jewish targets around the
| world (like the AMIA and then embassy bombings in Argentina)
|
| 5. Attacking neighboring countries with ballistic and cruise
| missiles, like the attacks on Saudi Aramco in 2019
|
| 6. Holding international shipping and energy markets hostage
| by threatening to attack ships and tankers in the Persian
| Gulf
|
| 7. Abusing their own citizens, including public executions,
| persecutions and extreme violence
|
| 8. Providing support to Russia in their efforts in Ukraine,
| and especially drones used for indiscriminate dumb attack
| waves against civilians and infrastructure
|
| Now we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes
| then they could have continued doing all of that.
| Ray20 wrote:
| > Now we have people arguing that if they had just gotten
| nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
|
| And where are they wrong?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _where are they wrong?_
|
| Probably in all of it. Iran wouldn't have a MAD arsenal,
| they'd have a small handful that they could pop on a
| ballistic. We know we can shoot down Iran's missiles. And
| we know they can't reach America. I'm entirely
| unconvinced that we wouldn't have launched an attack on
| Iran even if they had nuclear weapons, because we think
| we can intercept them, and if we can't, they aren't
| hitting the homeland.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| And on the off chance this defense doesn't work? No
| system is perfect. Put another way, would the risk
| calculation for an attack on Iran be as easy as it is
| right now?
|
| The point of having nuclear capabilities is to make the
| risk calculation more difficult. It doesn't mean you need
| to have state of the art capabilities.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _on the off chance this defense doesn't work? No system
| is perfect_
|
| Someone in the Middle East gets hit.
|
| > _would the risk calculation for an attack on Iran be as
| easy as it is right now?_
|
| The risk calculation isn't easy today. Nukes would make
| it harder. But I'm pushing back on the notion that it
| would make it a non-starter.
|
| (MAD arsenals and long-range ICBMs, on the other hand,
| make it a non-starter.)
| c0nducktr wrote:
| > Someone in the Middle East gets hit.
|
| Wow so no big deal then right?
|
| Jesus Christ dude
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _so no big deal then right?_
|
| Are you arguing it would be in this White House?
| ohjimny2 wrote:
| The difference between shooting down a conventionally
| armed missile and shooting down a nuclear armed missile
| is that the former will explode in the air or not at all,
| whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to
| detonate when it hits the ground.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to
| detonate when it hits the ground_
|
| If they're using a novel, supercritical core mechanism,
| maybe. Otherwise, unlikely.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to
| detonate when it hits the ground_
|
| If they're using a novel, supercritical core mechanism,
| maybe. Otherwise, unlikely. (You would get fallout
| instead.)
| etc-hosts wrote:
| > 4. Directly attacking multiple Jewish targets around the
| world (like the AMIA and then embassy bombings in
| Argentina)
|
| Why would Iran attack Argentina? There's plenty of Jewish
| Iranian citizens. Did they run out of people to attack?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why would Iran attack Argentina?_
|
| There is a hardline element in the IRGC that personally
| profits from autarky. If the Iranian markets opened to
| the world, it would decimate their incomes.
| rgoulter wrote:
| > Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence
| technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic
| missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen
| pretty soon.
|
| I think you'll have to be more specific.
|
| Or I guess to compare with your other observation: """Even
| with all this protection, Iran [sent] enough ballistic
| missiles to overwhelm the defences""" -- It's not a binary of
| "have missile defense or not => every missile will be shot
| down". An amount of missile defense will make it harder for
| missiles to successfully hit a target.
|
| Similarly with hypersonic missiles, it's not the binary of "I
| have a missile that's difficult to defend against, I win".
|
| Having a sword which can defeat a shield isn't in itself
| sufficient to obsolete the shield. (Infantry can be killed
| with bullets, yet infantry remain an important part of
| fighting despite that).
| ruben81ad wrote:
| This has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. The only problem
| here is that iran has petrol. Thats it.
| baq wrote:
| I used to believe that, I think there are also some very
| ambitious people nearby who want to use US armed forces for
| their benefit - as any rational player who has influence over
| such power would attempt.
| gpderetta wrote:
| > Iran has petrol
|
| More than taking control of Iranian petrol, this is probably
| more an attempt at cutting off China access to it (and also
| generally eliminating one of their allies), same as for the
| Venezuelan invasion.
| squidbeak wrote:
| You've completely misunderstood the poster's point. Nations
| are being taught that without nuclear weapons you could be
| attacked in this new world.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| This is an incredibly facile take on the situation. Iran has
| been a destabilizing regional power with imperial aims for 47
| odd years. They even murdered the PM of Lebanon via their
| proxy army. They've been poking the bear for decades, and
| there are serval occasions where it may have happened sooner
| in an alternative universe. Had McCain become president in
| '08 we may well have seen a land invasion from US positions
| in Iraq, as the Iranian Quds force was already fighting US
| soldiers in Iraq. The whole DoD is now full of Iraq veterans
| who hate the Iranian government to their bones. It's shocking
| this didn't happen sooner, and probably only didn't because
| of luck.
| yonisto wrote:
| Those who paid any attention to Ukraine already figured it out
| edgyquant wrote:
| Considering the rationale for this war that kind of seems false
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Considering the rationale for this war that kind of seems
| false_
|
| The spring to a nuke is riskier than ever. That doesn't
| change that nuclear sovereignty is a tier above the regular
| kind, this is something every one of the global powers
| (China, Russia and America) and most regional powers (Israel)
| have explicilty endorsed.
| hmokiguess wrote:
| On another note, Canada is the only country that ever decided
| against having them.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_weapons_of_mass_des...
| iso1631 wrote:
| Ukraine literally had them and gave them up
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| South Africa got rid of its nukes after the apartheid ended.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| You missed like, *checks notes* 186 other non-nuclear-armed
| states parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
|
| https://www.iaea.org/topics/non-proliferation-treaty
| hmokiguess wrote:
| Thanks I wasn't thorough in my readings, appreciate the
| correction!
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| Israel has nuclear weapons. Did it keep them safe?
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Pretty safe if you ask me, judging from their...location and
| historical context.
| alkonaut wrote:
| From invasion or forced regime change? Yes (But I don't think
| the nukes actually helped in that regard).
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| It did not keep them safe from the invasion 2 years ago.
| delecti wrote:
| Those attacks were horrific, but certainly nothing that
| rises to the level of an "invasion".
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| They were invasion by definition: Palestinians crossed
| into Israel, invaded villages and towns. How come it's
| not an invasion?
| wvbdmp wrote:
| Usually an invasion entails an intent to capture
| territory and occupy. A suicide terror attack is
| qualitatively different even if it's large-scale. The
| boots on the ground could just as well have been rockets,
| whereas an invasion needs a longer term presence.
| randyfox wrote:
| Palestinians crossed into israel from israel (occupied
| territories by israel). How can you invade yourself?
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > occupied territories by Israel)
|
| Gaza was not occupied. There was zero military presence
| in Gaza prior to October 7th.
| tokai wrote:
| Aim of an invasion is by definition to conquer.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| I think the meaning of 'invasion' in the context of
| nuclear deterrence refers to an attempt to occupy.
| BoredPositron wrote:
| Well, proximity is a factor...
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Historically, Israelis have been much safer than most of
| their neighbors Oct. 7th notwithstanding.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| Safer from what?
|
| Israeli neighbors that are at peace with Israel are safe as
| well, e.g., Egypt and Jordan.
| wat10000 wrote:
| The last time Israel faced an existential threat from its
| neighbors was 1973. The timeline isn't entirely clear, but
| that's right around the time when they started to have
| operational nuclear weapons. Many factors contributed to
| their relative safety since then, but the timing certainly
| works out for nuclear weapons helping to make that true.
| mickle00 wrote:
| 100% -- unfortunate, sad, and entirely predictable
| windowliker wrote:
| This is war... huh... wow!
| xdennis wrote:
| Love the Burzum reference, but it's low quality on a discussion
| forum. Downvoted.
| windowliker wrote:
| What's there to discuss about this absolute shit show?
| hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
| Nothing to do with nuclear weapons. They are trying to surround
| and isolate Turkey as the only other military heavyweight of the
| middle east.
|
| Israel and the US have already shown their cards in Syria. It is
| not peace they are after, it is regional domination.
| alex_low wrote:
| I'm surprised this has not been mentioned, for context:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres
| tgv wrote:
| I think that's because nobody believes for one second that
| these strikes are a retaliation for that.
| philk10 wrote:
| Epstein files and plummeting poll numbers are more likely
| reasons
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| My guess is Hegseth is cumming in his pants at the idea of
| starting the 10th Crusade.
| eunos wrote:
| Then Hegseth and Caine must be prepared to face the next
| Taiwan strait crisis with depleted munitions.
| croes wrote:
| Rookie numbers. Wait until they got liberated
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
| throwaw12 wrote:
| Are you saying those protested actually got funded by Israel
| and because Iran killed them, now Israel is retaliating?
|
| Now I really wonder if those protests were indeed fueled and
| funded by Israel, because we have seen videos of mosques being
| burned down by protestors, which is strange for Shia Muslim
| country, even if they don't like their government
| yoavm wrote:
| "A 2020 Online Survey by Gamaan found that 8.8% Iranians
| identifying as Atheist and a large fraction (22.2%)
| identifying as not following an organized religion and only
| 40% self identified as Muslims."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Iran
| izietto wrote:
| Maybe because nobody believes in the "exporting democracy"
| excuse anymore
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _nobody believes in the "exporting democracy" excuse_
|
| Has this been argued?
| 13415 wrote:
| Not directly but OP seemed to intuit some sort of moral
| justification for this war of aggression ("humanitarian
| reasons"), and few people believe that to be a key
| motivating factor for the White House.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > Not directly but OP seemed to intuit some sort of moral
| justification for this war of aggression
|
| There is an absolute moral justification for this war.
| Saying that US is the aggressor here is an absolute
| revisionism of history. Let us not pretend that Islamic
| Republic minded its own business since its inception, and
| suddenly the US and Israel decided to wage war on it.
|
| One example of IR's aggression is Beirut bombing in 1983
| sponsored and planned by IR.
| 13415 wrote:
| Both from an international rights and from a moral point
| of view you're objectively wrong. This is not even worth
| a discussion. The fact that you need cite a terrorist
| attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression
| in 2026 instigated by a US president without
| Congressional oversight speaks volumes.
|
| > _Islamic Republic minded its own business since its
| inception_
|
| That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.
|
| Just to anticipate another weak argument that is a non-
| starter, a war of aggression is also illegal if it is
| started under the pretense of caring about a human rights
| situation. This kind of justification is quite common
| anyway. For the same reason, preventive wars are also
| prohibited and immoral. Not even you want to live in a
| world where such wars are common, you're more likely
| merely arguing from the perspective of someone whose
| country you believe to be in a position of strength.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > Both from an international rights and from a moral
| point of view you're objectively wrong.
|
| Can you clarify the "moral point of view", please?
|
| > This is not even worth a discussion.
|
| How do you know without a discussion that you are right?
|
| > The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from
| 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026
| instigated by a US president without Congressional
| oversight speaks volumes.
|
| This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to
| show that Iran was in forever war with the US through
| either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of
| other states.
|
| > That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.
|
| Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a
| war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran
| was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not
| true. So, which is it?
|
| Also, how would congress authorization make US non-
| aggressor here?
| 13415 wrote:
| > _Can you clarify the "moral point of view", please?_
|
| The moral point of view is that a war of aggression
| violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked
| country. The aggressor country's officials are not
| elected by the people of the defending country, nor do
| they in any other way represent the people of that
| country. They have no right to decide the fate of the
| people in another country.
|
| > _How do you know without a discussion that you are
| right?_
|
| I'm reasonably certain about that because I've studied
| philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically
| on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also
| overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of
| justice.
|
| > _This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is
| to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through
| either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of
| other states._
|
| No it's not a straw man. You came up with the 1983 event,
| not me. It would have been a straw man argument if _I_
| suddenly had come up with that. My reply to your position
| is that there are no "forever wars" - this category does
| not exist in international right and obviously makes no
| sense. Once you start justifying your attacks with a
| "forever war" you're in the realm of historical
| justifications, and these are principally wrong. Why?
| Because you can find some historical justification for
| just about any war you want to start. The whole world
| would be constantly at war if historical justifications
| were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.
|
| > _Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a
| war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran
| was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not
| true. So, which is it?_
|
| I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the
| implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of
| war. However, the US military has just started a
| widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war.
| The US is the aggressor not just from an international
| rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced
| by the speech of the US President.
|
| > _Also, how would congress authorization make US non-
| aggressor here?_
|
| Not at all, and I didn't say that.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > The moral point of view is that a war of aggression
| violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked
| country. The aggressor country's officials are not
| elected by the people of the defending country, nor do
| they in any other way represent the people of that
| country. They have no right to decide the fate of the
| people in another country.
|
| Interesting. So, US intervention in WW2 was not moral?
| Germans did not consent.
|
| > I know that because I've studied philosophy and worked
| in ethics, though not specifically on any issues
| concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-
| educated person with an intact sense of justice.
|
| And? So, you cannot be mistaken?
|
| > Because you can find some historical justification for
| just about any war you want to start. The whole world
| would be constantly at war if historical justifications
| were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.
|
| Great. Then no war is acceptable. Any action that is not
| yet take is in the past, and thus historical. Why
| respond?
|
| You see, thinking in absolutes will take you only this
| far. The hardest issues to reason about are in the gray
| area, where you have to make a judgement call because it
| is not a clear cut issue. Unlike you, I realize that it's
| not a simple "aggression" but rather way more complicated
| issue.
|
| > I believe you're trolling.
|
| I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours.
| However, I am not basing my argument on my personal
| qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am
| trying to use universal values and reasoning.
| 13415 wrote:
| Let's keep it short, I'll give you the last word if you
| want.
|
| 1. The US "intervention" in WW2 was fully justified
| because the US was attacked. It's also justified to help
| another country that is attacked, for example the US
| campaign against Iraq during the First Gulf war was
| justified. Both were defensive actions, not wars of
| aggression. Preventive wars are also wars of aggression,
| though, and classified as such by international law.
| There are fairly direct equivalents of all of this in
| regular penal law.
|
| 2. I never claimed I cannot be mistaken. It's best to
| focus on arguments, not persons.
|
| > _Great. Then no war is acceptable._
|
| War has at least two sides (often more). A war of
| aggression is never acceptable. You've got that right.
| That's also how it's viewed in international law.
| Defending against a war of aggression is always
| acceptable. Helping someone defend against a war of
| aggression is also acceptable. There is a third category,
| a military intervention by a broad alliance legitimized
| by some international body. That is in the "it depends"
| category but plays no role here. Now countries that start
| wars of aggression know all that and therefore often
| argue they're just defending themselves. I'm stating that
| this is a pretense and not a correct justification in
| this particular case of the US attacking Iran. I'm not
| planning to go into the details why this is the case, it
| is obvious enough anyway. Just to make this clear.
|
| I have no comments about the rest of your comment, which,
| frankly speaking, to me mostly sounds like self-
| aggrandizing remarks. I was mostly referring to how
| established international law looks at the matter and
| your personal views interest me less. Have a good day!
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| It seems to me that your position is based on a certain
| belief and not reasoning.
| danny_codes wrote:
| That's the Bush doctrine! A belief that you can invade a
| country, remove the power center, and democracy will spring
| forth. You don't even need to speak the local language,
| read any books about the country you're attacking, or talk
| to any locals! Just go for it and democracy will magically
| spring into existence.
| jjfoooo4 wrote:
| What else does "regime change" as a goal refer to?
| yoavm wrote:
| Not surprising - people don't count deaths in the Middle East
| if they're caused by fellow Middle Easterns, except Israel.
| Living in Europe I've never heard about a protest against
| Saddam (250,000 - 1,000,000 dead), Khamenei (30,000 in a
| week?), Assad (> 300,000 civilians) etc. This is business as
| usual. It's only news if someone else does it.
| Rover222 wrote:
| this is so true
| eleventyseven wrote:
| Because HNers are not so gullible to swallow and regurgitate
| this pretext. The Trump administration doesn't care about the
| people of Iran, any more than Bush cared about the Iraqi Kurds
| or Afghan women. Just a pretext for geopolitics.
| kwar13 wrote:
| If you think Trump did that because he cares about Democracy I
| have some news for you regarding the Jan 6 rioters...
| jraby3 wrote:
| Compare how much Israel was in the news for targeting militants
| these past two years in Gaza.
|
| How biased is the press? Iran slaughters 36k people in a week
| and... crickets. Israel refuses to let its hostages die while
| Hamas hides out in hospitals and schools and the world is
| against Israel not Iran.
| tim333 wrote:
| Yeah, the:
|
| >Trump urges Iranians to keep protesting, saying 'help is on
| its way'
|
| stuff if pretty relevant.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| Nothing like a war to boost your popularity just before the
| elections
| AbstractH24 wrote:
| Only I'm not exactly sure what constituency will support this
| war.
|
| He wasn't even smart enough to leave America open to attack,
| manufacture a pretext, and rally people around the flag like
| 9/11
|
| Heck, there was even a better case in Korea & Vietnam. Even
| Venezuela. What's the case this is America's problem?
| ponector wrote:
| Funny how Iran is America's problem so much but Ukraine is
| not, despite signed security assurance to the Ukrainian
| people.
| bdangubic wrote:
| Israel is in charge of America and they did noy sign any
| assurances with Ukraine
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| This is about Religion. Hegseth is the 'Holy warrior for
| God' type. If there is a pretense to kill Muslims Trump and
| him will take it.
| happosai wrote:
| The Jesus people love it when Americas army support Israel
|
| The racists love it when Muslims get killed
| nsvd2 wrote:
| If a democracy is meaningfully created in Iran I will
| consider that a huge win for Trump and it would certainly
| make me more sympathetic to his party.
|
| To be clear, I don't think the chances of that happening are
| high.
| butterbomb wrote:
| > Only I'm not exactly sure what constituency will support
| this war.
|
| The remaining neocons who have surprisingly managed to weasel
| their way back into influence.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Nothing like a war to boost your popularity just before the
| elections_
|
| If he pulls off a regime change, even a Delcy-style swaparoo,
| he'll get it, and arguably not undeservedly. It will ultimately
| come down to Iran's capacity to inflict casualties on American
| forces.
| philk10 wrote:
| somehow I dont think regime change is gonna happen before the
| midterms or even before 2028
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I dont think regime change is gonna happen before the
| midterms_
|
| I agree. But to be fair, I would have said the same thing
| about Venezuela a year ago. Maybe the term should be a
| regime slip.
| donkeybeer wrote:
| I think he meant another regime not the Iranians.
| techblueberry wrote:
| We didn't change the regime in Venezuela though right?
| Just decapitated it?
|
| No one's thinking America cant succeed at the killing
| partz. It's what comes after that people are worried
| about.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _We didn't change the regime in Venezuela though
| right?_
|
| Practically speaking, we changed it. The foreign and
| energy policies we care about changed. The notion that
| you need to wholesale clean shop to qualify as regime
| change is misguided and counterproductive [1].
|
| (On the other end of the spectrum, the fact that we kept
| the Japanese Emperor on his throne doesn't mean we didn't
| change the Japanese regime.)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification
| techblueberry wrote:
| I don't know if the same theory works in Iran though
| right, Iran is amidst economic collapse. It seems like
| the situation in Venezula with Maduro was tenable so when
| we decapitated the leader and got what we wanted it was
| ok that maybe most things didn't change. Is there a
| similar theory for Iran that's not soaked in hubris?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Is there a similar theory for Iran that 's not soaked
| in hubris?_
|
| Lots of factions in Iran, including within the IRGC.
| Khamenei's bunker gets hit, oh no, new dude knives the
| competition and then makes a call to the White House.
| nullocator wrote:
| The U.S. is amidst economic collapse... hubris ...
| tokai wrote:
| Delusional. With your line of thought Al-Qaeda got regime
| change in the US.
| tyleo wrote:
| I'm not so sure. This is no where near a priority issue for
| most Americans, "I can't afford eggs and the immigrant I buy
| pizza from got shipped to a warehouse but thank god the
| regime changed in Iran."
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _This is no where near a priority issue for most
| Americans_
|
| I don't think this means the GOP keeps the House. But Trump
| got a bump from Venezuela, particularly within his party.
| violentapricot wrote:
| Schumer was brought into a briefing on Iran and clearly
| 'got his mind right' in there. I don't know who makes
| decisions in government, but it's not the people on
| camera. US elections are irrelevant to consequential
| matters, and we waste too much time thinking about them.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _US elections are irrelevant to consequential matters_
|
| This is nonsense. If you actually believe this, spend
| some time around your elected representatives and in
| Washington.
| carefulfungi wrote:
| I never understand how someone can look at Trump and the
| last year and think elections don't matter or have
| consequences.
| nullocator wrote:
| I think this framing is bad, it's not that people don't
| think there are consequences it's that it's 50/50 on
| whether the consequences will be personally worse for
| them. There are few, maybe no upsides, to elections in
| the U.S. for the majority of the electorate.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| More than anything else, conservatives love the feeling
| that they are winning. Over a rival sports team, over a
| political opponent, and especially over a foreign power.
| This is why MAGA won over the neocons so easily, the MAGA
| shtick is to claim to be always winning.
| leptons wrote:
| Many conservatives voted for trump because they thought
| he wasn't a "war hawk", they don't want the US in wars
| around the world, they don't want their children sent off
| to die in foreign lands. So they voted for trump and then
| got "Department of War", and now a war in Iran, the last
| thing they wanted.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| This isn't a defense of the president or his policies but
| we don't know if this will be a (sustained) war or rather
| a week or two of airstrikes like the previous iteration
| and the Maduro thing.
|
| > Many conservatives voted for trump because they thought
| he wasn't a "war hawk"
|
| I doubt their honesty. Considering they blamed Biden for
| Russia invading Ukraine and October 7 with the
| galaxybrain reasoning of "It didn't happen while Trump
| was in office", I am convinced the isolationism thing is
| just an unserious talking point.
|
| Even the Joe Rogan MAGAs should remember when they cried
| on social media about how they were about to be drafted
| after the Soleimani thing under Trump.
| hypeatei wrote:
| They leveraged special operations forces in Venezuela. Iran
| has two US carrier groups on their front door; this operation
| is not going to be as precise as the one against Maduro.
| nullocator wrote:
| Trump could liberate every repressed country in the world and
| it would not impact in the slightest the cold hard fact that
| neither I nor most the people I know will ever vote R again.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| If you are admitting that you voted R in 2024, and only now
| you won't vote R, that really doesn't fix anything. Your
| bar is set so insanely low that you will vote R on someone
| who is slightly better than Trump.
|
| As a life long D voter, I am personally going to vote R
| every election now because I want US to sink into the
| ground so low that people like you experience actual pain
| and suffering.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Stop it. You're not helping. This kind of thing is really
| counterproductive. Welcome your comrade with open arm.
| Give him time to warm up. Don't be an absolutist.
| z3c0 wrote:
| You took a presumption and ran with it into baseless
| vitriol
| dabinat wrote:
| I really hope the US electorate never forgives the
| Republican Party for the damage it's done to this country,
| but I suspect that people's memories will be short.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| If the US public was inclined to "never forgive" those
| kind of offenses (or even to really fully reject them
| even once they no longer had dominant support) then the
| Democratic Party would have been destroyed for its role
| as the party of slavery and insurrection instead of
| surviving long enough to reject the bigotry that
| motivated those stances only to have the Republican Party
| immediately pick it up.
| eunos wrote:
| >Delcy-style swaparoo,
|
| I think IRGCs are much more robust and zealous than whatever
| Maduro had.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Obviously. They would have kidnapped or assassinated
| leadership many decades ago otherwise. They have tried and
| failed many times. They're talking about trying to break
| the state though, which isn't something the US tried in Vz.
| This'll be much harder.
| eunos wrote:
| Many folks said that if the supreme leader got killed
| then it's all over. I honestly skeptical since IRGC folks
| would take over and I think they are much more militant
| than the Supreme Leader.
| guerrilla wrote:
| You are right to be skeptical. Khomeini died and now
| Khamenei is supreme leader. He too will have a successor
| if he dies (or is dead as Isreal clamed a moment ago).
| Iran has spent the last few weeks picking out successors
| four deep for each office. It's been the main news
| besides the "negotiations".
| JeremyNT wrote:
| Is our memory so short? Regime change in Iraq destabilized
| that region for 2 decades.
| ekianjo wrote:
| You sure? Seems like a war for no reason is hardly going to get
| popular support.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| From a man who campaigned on No New Wars.
| awnird wrote:
| Americans are bloodthirsty freaks. Killing people is always
| popular with Americans.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| You're acting like people are rational. It's just about
| power. Appearing strong appeals to the apes inside the
| humans. And no one is more in touch with his inner ape than
| Trump.
| jmyeet wrote:
| Military action in Iran is deeply unpopular, being supported by
| just 27% of US adult citizens [1]. As an aside, Congress
| literally doesn't care what voters think [2]. The pearl-
| clutching about this from Congressional Democrats isn't about
| policy but process, with the likes of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem
| Jeffries saying Congress should authorize this action, not that
| it shouldn't happen.
|
| I'm interested in what makes empires tick, what their basis of
| power is.
|
| Spain in the colonial era was propped up by looting silver from
| Central and South America, for example.
|
| The British Empire is what many (including me) like to call the
| "drug dealer empire". First tobacco then later opium. Any
| claims that we didn't know about the health risks of tobacco
| are complete BS (eg [3]).
|
| Circling back to your point, the US is what I like to call the
| "arms dealer empire". WW1 and WW2 massively enriched the United
| States. NATO is essentially a protection racket for Europe and
| the price is, you guessed it, buying arms from the United
| States.
|
| And the next Budget has proposed increasing "defense" spending
| from an already eye-popping $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion [4].
| Where does that money go? Arms, weapons programs, defense
| contractors, the ultra-wealthy.
|
| War is good for business even though it's unpopular.
|
| [1]: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-
| suppor...
|
| [2]: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/
|
| [3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15198996/
|
| [4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-proposes-
| massive...
| Bender wrote:
| _Nothing like a war to boost your popularity just before the
| elections_
|
| Congress will not let him have a third term regardless of what
| he says or thinks.
| sph wrote:
| Congress seems to be quite toothless lately.
| Bender wrote:
| True but they will have a hard time ignoring the 22nd
| amendment of the US constitution and it would be an easy
| move to remove him from the election process which a
| majority of the states themselves could do without
| opposition.
| 13415 wrote:
| They might try the good old Putin trick, have a puppet
| elected on behalf of Trump and let Trump have another
| high-ranking position (e.g. Vice President) and hold the
| real power. Trump can still do most of campaigning, and
| there is also ample opportunity for election fraud.
| Svoka wrote:
| In russia they had 2 terms limit as well. Putin found a quick
| work-around by basically running through Proxy.
|
| I can see JD being a figurehead with very public Trump
| support.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| > Congress will let him...
|
| Lol, 'let'. Whose going to stop him?
| Bender wrote:
| Each state can decide to not list him in the election
| process. Some red states for sure would but plenty would
| not including a few red and purple states.
| squidbeak wrote:
| Nothing like a war to push Epstein out of the headlines.
| malshe wrote:
| You really think the elections will happen
| ActorNightly wrote:
| The popularity aspect is irrelevant.
|
| Trump can literally do all the things that the epstein files
| accuse him of doing, right on camera in front of everyone, and
| Americans will still vote for him all because he isn't a "woke"
| black woman.
| jeffhollon wrote:
| Peace and profit.
| Arun2009 wrote:
| I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly
| motivated by _religious_ concerns, both on the side of Iran and
| on the side of Israel and USA.
|
| I have been reading on the topic of shunyata or emptiness in
| Mahayana Buddhism, and have been uncomfortably observing just how
| much of the artifacts we take to be real and substantial in the
| world are just "made up". They don't have an inherent reality of
| their own except what we attribute to them. And yet, made up
| stories can have very real consequences in terms human suffering.
|
| It ought to be possible to cut through the layers of reifications
| and simply defuse much of the strife in the world. And yet, we
| continue to inflict misery on each other unnecessarily.
| vcryan wrote:
| It had nothing to do with religion, that element is used to
| distract.
| merelythere wrote:
| They are following their books like a self-fulfilling
| prophecy.
| AbstractH24 wrote:
| > I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly
| motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and
| on the side of Israel and USA.
|
| Can you provide an example of this in 2026?
|
| It seems a little tenable with the ayatollah and Iran. But even
| here you don't hear much talk of this being a war in the name
| of religion anymore. Nowhere near a few years ago and certainly
| nothing like 9/11 and the Taliban.
|
| And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way. Just a
| war defending people against attackers at the gates.
| samrus wrote:
| The evangelicals support isreal due to religious obligation.
|
| Project 2025, a christian nationalist policy advisement
| widely followed by the current regime, prescribes supporting
| isreal
| swingboy wrote:
| Evangelicals point to Genesis 12:3 as justification but
| never seem to have ever read any of Galatians 3.
| kubb wrote:
| The land promised to the Israelites generally extends from
| the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq/Syria,
| encompassing modern-day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan,
| and parts of Syria and Saudi Arabia.
|
| If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a
| mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even
| obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not
| only the West Bank but the entire region. So there will
| always be that motivation, as long as religious Judaism
| exists in Israel.
| azernik wrote:
| That is not the ruling Likud ideology in Israel nor the
| allied national religious ideology; both refer to
| Israel+Palestine+Golan as "the Whole Land of Israel".
|
| And in any case, the "most religious" (ie those whose
| politics are most totally driven by Judaism) bloc in Israel
| are at best ambivalent about the Israeli state and the
| settlement enterprise, and actively hostile to military
| service.
|
| Israeli hostility to Iran is driven by a "defensive"
| paranoia, not a religious mission.
| kubb wrote:
| Of course it needs to be approached pragmatically. If
| Israel stated that its number one goal is to rule the
| entire region, they wouldn't have been as successful as
| they are.
|
| Also God didn't say when. But he did promise, according
| to the Book.
| azernik wrote:
| This is insane conspiracy theory nonsense, and is also
| not how actual Jews read the Tanakh.
|
| (Which is also not referred to as "the Book", since it's
| a collection of books. This may seem like a nitpick, but
| I think is indicative of you getting your information
| from non-Jewish conspiracy theorist circles rather than
| anything related to Jewish theology or culture.)
| kubb wrote:
| Try to resist the temptation to lump me in with the
| conspiracy theorists. If you can, provide facts. Thanks
| for your nuance about the Books. I was using the
| terminology I learned for the Bible (which also consists
| of multiple Books, but is referred to as the Book), but
| I'm happy to switch to "scripture".
|
| The Dati Leumi, the Religious Zionists, who constitute
| the ideological backbone of the settler movement, and
| have a lot of political influence in Israel, absolutely
| believe in their duty to govern the biblical land. For
| many, holding the West Bank is a religious obligation,
| and they consider the Golan settled and annexed.
| Religiously, the same principle that justifies them
| holding Golan applies to these territories.
|
| Here are some recent statements from political leaders:
|
| Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister, Religious Zionist
| party) "it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to
| expand to Damascus."
|
| Daniella Weiss (prominent settler leader) said in 2024:
| "We know from the Bible that the real borders of Greater
| Israel are the Euphrates and the Nile."
|
| Benjamin Netanyahu said he's on a "historic and spiritual
| mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of
| Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and
| possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt,
| Syria, and Lebanon.
|
| Yair Lapid, the secular centrist opposition leader (!).
| "I don't think I have a dispute on the biblical level
| about what the original borders of Israel are... I
| support anything that will allow the Jews a big, vast,
| strong land."
|
| Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) "It would be fine
| if they took it all."
| YZF wrote:
| Huckabee speaks for himself and maybe some Christians.
|
| I would say a lot of Jewish people and Israelis get upset
| at what you're saying and so maybe our reply will be a
| bit adversarial. Here's trying to be more factual (I used
| Gemini to research though I'm personally familiar with
| these figures as well).
|
| Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (1920-2013): The highly influential
| former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel. While his
| political party (Shas) later shifted rightward, Rabbi
| Yosef issued a landmark religious ruling in the late
| 1970s stating that Israel is permitted to cede land in
| exchange for a genuine peace treaty, prioritizing the
| sanctity of life over holding territory.
|
| Rabbi Menachem Froman (1945-2013): An Orthodox rabbi and
| resident of a West Bank settlement who famously engaged
| in direct dialogue with Palestinian leaders, including
| the PLO and Hamas. He supported the creation of a
| Palestinian state, arguing that shared religious
| reverence for the land should be the foundation for peace
| rather than an obstacle.
|
| Rabbi Michael Melchior: An Orthodox rabbi and former
| Israeli cabinet minister who leads the Mosaica religious
| peace initiative. He actively works on "track-two"
| diplomacy, fostering dialogue between Israeli rabbis and
| Palestinian imams.
|
| Rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903-1994): A highly
| influential Orthodox Jewish philosopher and scientist.
| Immediately following the 1967 Six-Day War, he became a
| vocal opponent of the military occupation of the
| Palestinian territories, warning that it would corrupt
| Israeli society and Judaism itself.
|
| Rabbis for Human Rights: An active Israeli organization
| made up of over a hundred Orthodox, Reform, Conservative,
| and Reconstructionist rabbis. They physically protect
| Palestinian farmers, advocate against settler violence,
| and largely support a two-state solution based on the
| biblical mandate to protect the vulnerable.
|
| On the question of the applicability of religion: "Does
| Judaism Mandate a Specific Political Solution?
|
| No. Judaism predates the concept of the modern nation-
| state, so the religion does not explicitly mandate a
| "one-state" or "two-state" political framework. Instead,
| different religious camps emphasize competing core values
| within Jewish law (Halakha) and scripture to justify
| their political stances"
|
| There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that
| on your own.
| kubb wrote:
| Remember, the claim wasn't that all Israelis believe or
| support this. The claim was that religious motivations
| for violence exist. And a stronger claim that I think I
| have sufficiently defended was, that many influential
| people have these motivations.
| YZF wrote:
| If the weaker claim is that some Israelis have religious
| motivations or feel like religion supports their position
| - sure. But big picture religion doesn't play as large as
| a role for Israelis as it might play for Iran or let's
| say Hamas or the Houthis. Even with those more religious
| actors I don't think religion is the only driver, e.g.
| with Iran this is probably partly just a way to control
| the population vs. a religious belief held by everyone in
| the regime (not sure about the ex-supreme leader)
| thisislife2 wrote:
| I agree with you for the most part. But we aren't talking
| about the ordinary spiritual Jews or Christians or
| Muslims. We are talking about _religious fundamentalists_
| who have a very distorted view of their religion, and mix
| it with identity politics. Israeli-right religious
| fundamentalists have captured full power in Israel, and
| are now even threatening their own democracy. Don 't
| forget that the Likud party that Netanyahu leads was once
| a terrorist organisation in its previous avatar, that
| used to do Hamas like massacre of Palestinians and
| assassinate Israeli leaders that didn't subscribe to
| their ideology and wanted peace with Palestine. Indeed,
| if the Israelis were freed of these religious
| fundamentalist leaders peace is very likely. ( _The
| Terrorist Forefathers of Israel: The Irgun and Lehi_ -
| https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/03/the-terrorist-
| forefathers... ) .
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Israel literally has minted coins with the image of
| Greater Israel (they claim this is only in reference to
| some ancient coin designs). The US ambassador to Israel,
| Mike Huckabee, has just a few days ago given an interview
| where he explicitly stated that Israel / the Jewish
| people has a right to that entire land, from the
| Euphrates to the Nile. The Israeli _opposition_ leader
| was then asked about this, and he agreed with the US
| ambassador that yes, they do have this right, but that of
| course it must be viewed realistically given security and
| operational limitations.
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| Tell that to the millions of Hasidic Jews in the United
| States who do not believe that a Jewish nation should exist
| at all.
| kubb wrote:
| Thanks for this information, I'd like to offer something
| in return.
|
| Only certain Hasidic groups oppose Israel, including
| Satmar Hasidim (over 100k followers), and Neturei Karta
| (fringe, only about 1k supporters). That's less than
| millions, and a minority within the Hasidic world.
|
| Theologically, they oppose it based on an interpretation
| a Talmudic passage saying that establishment of Israel
| has to happen after the coming of the Messiah.
|
| Additionally, there are a lot different denominations of
| Jews within Israel, some of whom have more pragmatic
| views. But a significant, politically influential
| minority believes in their duty to govern all biblical
| land.
| weatherlite wrote:
| > If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a
| mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even
| obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule
| not only the West Bank but the entire region.
|
| Well not really , most Orthodox definitely don't believe
| this in fact some of them are anti Zionist and the ones who
| accept Israel's existence definitely do not think Israel
| needs to expand its borders like that. So no to that.
| kubb wrote:
| Israeli have a diverse spectrum of religious
| denominations. This includes religious, non Orthodox
| Jews. Dati Leumi (the religious Zionists) are by far the
| most hawkish. They absolutely believe that the biblical
| land belongs to the Jewish people. They account for about
| 15% and are incredibly politically influential.
|
| The Haredim (the ultra-Orthodox) are more complicated,
| and in general don't want all the promised land (they
| believe that the state established militarily/politically
| isn't the "spiritual" state that was promised). But, when
| it comes to the currently occupied land, they have been
| shifting right in recent years. They vote in coalition
| with the nationalist right, and their communities
| increasingly overlap geographically with settlements.
| YZF wrote:
| The Dati Leumi camp isn't as uniform as you portray it.
| There are many examples (e.g. Avrum Burg,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Burg ) do not think
| Israel should be over the entire historical/biblical
| region ("Eretz Israel Ha-Shlema").
|
| More examples are:
|
| - Rabbi Yehuda Amital and the Meimad Party
|
| - Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein
|
| You are confusing politics and religion.
| kubb wrote:
| > You are confusing politics and religion.
|
| Religious Zionism is a religious denomination.
|
| National Religious Party-Religious Zionism is a political
| party.
|
| It feels unfair and unjustified that you are accusing me
| of confusing them without substantiating your accusation.
| I am still open to learn anything that you might want to
| share with me that you think is important.
| YZF wrote:
| So Avrum Burg I mentioned in another comment is
| historically affiliated with the "Mafdal", the religious
| party. That religious party, just like religious zionism
| in general, isn't one uniform block. It has different
| opinions and it evolves.
|
| I feel like I lost track of the discussion. At some point
| I thought you were claiming something along the lines
| that says religious Jews believe they are under an order
| from God to expand Israel to its maximal biblical
| geographical area.
|
| If your claim is that the current day Mafdal's political
| (not necessarily religious) position is that Israel
| should annex the West Bank and Gaza. Ehm, sure, maybe. I
| think it's a bit more nuanced even than that but I won't
| argue on this point.
|
| It's possible I just lost the thread, and if I did I
| apologize. HN isn't very good at facilitating this sort
| of discussion. If I mis-stated your position above and am
| agreeing with the wrong thing I'm sure you'll correct me.
|
| [EDIT: correcting myself a little bit Burg actually ended
| up as a member of the Labor party in politics, but his
| politics did originally align with the Mafdal, the party
| is/was supposed to represent all Zionist Religious people
| but has obviously diverged a bit from that)
| kubb wrote:
| > At some point I thought you were claiming something
| along the lines that says religious Jews believe they are
| under an order from God to expand Israel to its maximal
| biblical geographical area.
|
| I just meant that there's a part of the religious
| spectrum prone to that interpretation, and it mixes very
| well with nationalism, and expansionism. And that it
| isn't a meaningless fringe, but has a significant
| political representation. What I wrote was a reasonable
| way the scripture can be interpreted by someone who
| believes it's a true word of God.
|
| If I'm wrong, and e.g. the Miflaga Datit Leumit party
| explicitly rejects this kind of intepretation then I
| stand corrected, but judging by what its leader says
| publicly this isn't the case...
| YZF wrote:
| > If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a
| mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even
| obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule
| not only the West Bank but the entire region. So there will
| always be that motivation, as long as religious Judaism
| exists in Israel.
|
| I would say this is generally false.
|
| There are many religious Jews who believe there should be
| no state of Israel until the Messiah comes. Judaism is very
| open to interpretations and certainly within the question
| of modern state politics doesn't have as much to say as you
| seem to think it does.
|
| There are many different Rabbis in Israel with different
| political opinions and generally their followers will tend
| to hold similar beliefs. There are right wing Rabbis and
| left wing Rabbis, it's not uniform at all. During the Oslo
| peace process there were many religious people supporting
| and many opposing, pretty much the same as secular.
|
| What is true is that some Israelis view their right to the
| land in the context of the biblical promise God made our
| people. That is not the same thing. Funny enough I'd say
| more Christians believe the literal promise and it's
| implication on current day politics than Jews. It's also
| true that religious people these days tend to be more right
| leaning politically. But the religion isn't mandating those
| world views it just that they can align.
| kubb wrote:
| I will grant you this: there are many Israelis that don't
| believe this, and some of them are religious.
|
| Will you grant me this: religious motivations for
| violence exist within Israel, including the ruling
| political class?
| sosomoxie wrote:
| This attack was literally lined up to coincide with the
| israeli holiday of purim, a celebration of murdering their
| enemies:
|
| https://x.com/chrisbrunet/status/2027665287982502195
| azernik wrote:
| That tweet does not support your claim, and it is in fact
| not Purim yet.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| How does that tweet not support my claim? It's CNN
| reporting, here's the actual article:
| https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-
| attack-0...
| keeda wrote:
| I feel like this sort of symbolic planning means you don't
| even need to leak to the wrong Signal chat group to
| telegraph your attack? Especially when enemy warships have
| already been hovering for a few days...
| thisislife2 wrote:
| > _And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way._
|
| The American ambassador to Israel recently publicly said that
| Israel has a "biblical right" to the whole of the middle-
| east! (Watch these two interviews to understand how cleverly,
| and strongly, Israeli politics is tied up with American
| evangelical Christianity to keep American polity tied to
| Israel's existence - https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-
| fares-abraham-021826 and https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-
| show-mike-huckabee-022026 . Both these interviews give you a
| very insightful picture of how religious fundamentalist
| Israelis in power are total nutcases, supported by the
| American Christian fundamentalist fruitcakes).
| dlubarov wrote:
| Can you offer a source that wouldn't require us to listen
| to hours of Tucker Carlson?
| thisislife2 wrote:
| The source is not Tucker Carlson - it is the person(s) he
| is interviewing. And if you don't want to listen to the
| interview, you can pay him to get a transcription of the
| interview and search through it. (Meanwhile, you may find
| this equally insightful - _The Terrorist Forefathers of
| Israel: The Irgun and Lehi_ :
| https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/03/the-terrorist-
| forefathers... - supporting my arguments on how _Jewish
| religious fundamentalists_ have captured power in Israel.
| Without getting rid of them, peace is not possible in
| that region as they are the other side of coin that was
| Hamas in Palestine).
| jmyeet wrote:
| > I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly
| motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and
| on the side of Israel and USA.
|
| This just isn't true. Religion is never the reason for these
| conflicts. It's the excuse. It's how that conflict is sold to
| the rest of the world. It's how civilians are manipulated into
| dying in a conflict.
|
| The source of these conflicts is always _material_. Always.
|
| Reagan's Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig once said
| [1]:
|
| > Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world
| that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier,
| and is located in a critical region for American national
| security.
|
| In 1986, then Senator and future president Joe Biden said [2]:
|
| > [Israel] is the best $3 billion ivnestment we make. Were
| there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to
| an invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.
|
| Much of US Middle East polciy was aimed to sabotaging and
| undermining Pan-Arab Nationalism (particularly under then
| Egyptian President Nasser) [3].
|
| Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In
| this case it's about oil.
|
| Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the
| US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:
|
| 1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at
| the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay
| higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to
| "nationalize" their own oil;
|
| 2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei
| from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran
| was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was
| that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one
| (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want
| Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this
| pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you
| realize the US helped created it;
|
| 3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to
| Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that
| killed over a million people; and
|
| 4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying
| "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not
| to be a US puppet.
|
| If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith,
| I'll show you the material interests behind it.
|
| [1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd
|
| [2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-
| joe-b...
|
| [3]:
| https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
| gpderetta wrote:
| > Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the
| world that cannot be sunk,
|
| Airstrip one is disappointed.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > The source of these conflicts is always material. Always.
|
| Since the beginning of the Green Revolution1, no. The source
| of these conflicts are always ideological. Always. Ideology
| may come through religion or some other medium.
|
| Countries don't go occupying land because they need crops or
| slaves anymore. Material is always cheaper to buy than to get
| from an occupation. The desire to annex some land is always
| for somebody's pet project, it doesn't make economic sense.
|
| 1 - In a very wide sense. Agriculture stopped being the
| bottleneck for human populations at some point in the 18th or
| early 19th centuries.
| GorbachevyChase wrote:
| I think the praise of the strategic value to US military
| interests are rationalizations and poor ones at that. The
| Gulf monarchies are allies in a meaningful sense and provide
| useful material support to the United States. Our "ally" on
| the other hand was recently caught running a child
| prostitution ring and money laundering operation to control
| business and political leaders in the United States.
| Kidnapping children and removing their teeth so they can't
| bite their rapists for political leverage is going to be
| remembered by future generations with the same horror and
| disgust as medieval torture and 20th century concentration
| camps.
| violentapricot wrote:
| It's not said in polite company, but Israeli concerns are
| racial, not religious. If you meet a Jewish zionist, then
| you've also met an athiest. An explanation of Christian Zionism
| deserves much longer discussion than can be made here, but how
| and why such an obvious contradiction to Jesus' ministry gained
| popularity is something worth studying.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Once you realize the gospels and the epistles disagree, it
| becomes a lot easier to understand. Christianity is the
| practice of cognitive dissonance. The bible, due to the
| nature, has a lot of mixed messaging.
|
| Imagine, for example, you wanted to write the religion of
| Liberalism, so you collect the works of all the major
| thinkers on the subject of liberalism into one book. Now
| imagine someone gets the bad idea that all these authors must
| actually have a unified view on what liberalism is, means,
| and implies. You'll end up seeing that person teach a form of
| liberalism that's easily countered with other passages from
| their book and they'll mostly just wave it away because they
| have their passages and the others are simply you
| misinterpreting an "obvious" metaphor.
|
| That is christianity in a nutshell, just replace liberalism
| with god. That's why there are so many sects. Because it's
| just too easy to yell "Context context context!" when a
| difficult passage comes up you don't agree with and use
| "spiritual" as the excuse for why you don't actually have to
| follow that passage.
| azernik wrote:
| Not entirely accurate:
|
| 1. Many Israeli Jewish Zionists are either "traditional"
| (religious but not that much) or Religious Zionist, and they
| are generally part of the right wing coalition. Actual
| atheists tend to be in the Israeli (still-Zionist) left.
|
| 2. The Zionist conception of Jewish identity is not "racial"
| in the American sense. The most obvious sense in which this
| is true is that it considers converts and their descendants
| full members of the nation. Probably the closest analogies
| are some Native American nations' identities or Armenian
| nationalism.
|
| But you're directionally correct - Zionism is not a
| particularly religious ideology within the Jewish world, and
| outside of the Religious Zionist minority the political class
| is (openly!) on the _less_ observant end even on the right.
| cies wrote:
| Religious concerns are, IMHO, always a facade for the
| underlying economic/territorial/geopolitical reasons. These
| religious facades help sell the war effort: get young men to
| enlist and fight to the death for "preserving their identity".
| And "muh freedom" is just as much a religious motivation to me
| (unsubstantiated, indoctrinated, unthreatened).
| eleventyseven wrote:
| Religion isn't the facade, it is the medium through which
| other reasons are transmitted
| mkoubaa wrote:
| Fallacy.
|
| (Wrong) Knife fight: a fight between people about knives
|
| (Right) Knife fight: a fight between people using knives
| philistine wrote:
| Religion poisons everything.
| lukifer wrote:
| Examples abound; but for good and ill, the language-using ape
| seems to be a religious animal, having co-evolved with
| mythological memeplexes.
|
| There's the old salt from DFW, "one can't choose whether to
| worship, only what to worship". Less apologetics, perhaps,
| than a _realmythos_ (akin to _realpolitik_ ).
|
| Nature abhors a vacuum, and something inevitably fills the
| void: the "god-shaped hole" in individuals, and the game-
| theoretic basin of attraction, the actual _realpolitik_ of
| loyalty-signaling, load-bearing fictions which bind an
| "imagined community". (The first might be manageable, but the
| second is a doozy: a faith which could not be more explicitly
| anarcho-pacifist mutated into justification for brutally
| violent hierarchies of domination and exploitation. So it
| goes.)
| philistine wrote:
| Mythology does not equal religion.
|
| And the fact you feel a hole that religion fills for you
| doesn't mean it's there in everyone. Enforced religious
| participation is never proof that religion is what people
| crave.
| lukifer wrote:
| I don't disagree. I trimmed "religious and mythological
| memeplexes" down to avoid repetition. (Also worth
| considering: de-facto religious behaviors need not be
| supernatural or "mythological"; you can substitute your
| own examples of political ideologies that are difficult
| to distinguish from religions in practice.)
|
| It is obviously a deeply complicated _and_ complex
| phenomenon. Even the Dennett /Dawkins model of selfish
| replicators aren't necessarily sufficient, in addition to
| my claim that the relationship between genes and memes
| can sometimes be mutually symbiotic (and I'm aware of the
| great many counter-examples).
|
| To be clear, I don't hold to a particular faith myself
| (and I've spent time at both ends of the spectrum). I
| suspect that the so-called "god-shaped hole" is one of
| many characteristics that varies in the human animal, not
| unlike those who have a mind's eye and those who don't,
| or those who hear their thoughts audibly and those who
| don't.
|
| > Enforced religious participation is never proof that
| religion is what people crave.
|
| While what people crave obviously varies, I think most
| people _do_ crave something like meaning and community
| (or flipping it around: selection pressures seem to have
| selected for meaning and community, presumably at least
| in part from a green-beard effect [0]). While those can
| exist independently of faith, we can empirically observe
| that they tend to overlap quite a lot (again, for good
| and ill).
|
| While I'd agree with you regarding illiberal theocracies
| and religious totalitarianism, I'd problematize your
| framing in two ways: (a) "forced" implies that someone is
| doing the forcing, meaning presumably _someone_ craves
| it, or is at least willing to play along [1]; but more
| pertinently, (b) there is a middle ground between the
| extremes of "explicit individual choice", and "forced
| participation": norms, culture, emulation, etc.
|
| No one "forces" anyone in the business world to wear
| suits, or use LinkedIn jargon; but the incentives are in
| favor of doing so (and against not doing so), so people
| play along: some cynically, some internalizing norms
| sincerely. If we hit a magic History Randomizer Button
| that shuffled historical contingencies, I don't think
| we'd have an absence of those norms, but other norms with
| different details. And I suspect we'd see _different_
| churches and myths and holy books, not an absence of
| them.
|
| To reiterate, I'm just talking Darwinian functionality
| here, not whether religion is good or bad in a normative
| sense. If the niche exists, "nature finds a way".
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iEWTx_APQ4
| misiek08 wrote:
| There is also point of view that remembers that always right
| behind US military there is a team building next oil pipeline.
| US tried to used China as cheap labor, lost a lot of
| intelligence and now - look at how much oil Iran has and who is
| it exporting to and what is the percentage at the destination.
| The numbers add up and only the funny (?) thing is - China is
| (going to) be most eco country, because they already use
| nuclear power a lot and were forced to work on that.
|
| What a time to be alive, again! And please, downvote me,
| comment that US is fighting for some country's civilians
| freedom. It's fun too.
| ozgrakkurt wrote:
| It makes a lot more sense if you picture a bunch of organized,
| strong and merciless chimps attacking some other chimps to
| plunder what they have.
|
| Chimps generally agree war is bad and horrific. But some smart,
| opportunistic and hard-working chimps can create situations
| that make war possible. Even though the war will only bring
| losses to most chimps on both sides.
| lioeters wrote:
| The best political insight in this thread. This is the planet
| of the apes. If any future historians are reading, some of us
| primates were aware of the absurdity of the situation,
| horrified by the senseless violence that erupts again and
| again, led by sociopathic chimps that somehow managed to
| organize whole societies against each other and profit from
| the whole primitive enterprise. What a waste of human
| potential.
| rambojohnson wrote:
| You're mistaking the packaging for the product. Religion is the
| language leaders use. Power, territory, oil corridors, regional
| dominance, and domestic political survival are what they're
| actually fighting over.
|
| Tehran isn't calculating missile ranges based on sutras.
| Washington doesn't position carrier groups because of
| metaphysics. Israel's security doctrine isn't a meditation
| retreat.
|
| Spiritual narratives make clean moral theater for the public.
| They mobilize bodies. They sanctify retaliation. But the
| machinery underneath runs on leverage and deterrence, not
| theology.
|
| Wake up to the real world.
|
| Calling it primarily religious violence feels tidy and tragic
| in a philosophical way. It's harder, and more uncomfortable, to
| admit that it's strategic violence dressed in symbols people
| recognize.
|
| Shunyata is a beautiful lens for seeing through ego. It doesn't
| dissolve geopolitics.
| pphysch wrote:
| > Israel's security doctrine isn't a meditation retreat.
|
| "Security doctrine" is quite a euphemism for aggressive
| territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing, which is tightly
| wrapped in religious rhetoric.
| rambojohnson wrote:
| religious rhetoric is for the fools they've indoctrinated
| to their cause. it does not drive policy. I was being
| sardonic with "security doctrine".
| 2snakes wrote:
| I do this too. I think it is basically simulation out of
| fear. (modeling because of uncomfortableness with
| thinking with System 1 fast emotional / System 2 slow
| rational)
| thisislife2 wrote:
| Israel today _is_ run by a group of religious
| fundamentalists who do believe it is their "promised"
| land. And then we have an American ambassador publicly
| supporting this because he thinks that as a Christian he
| needs to support Israel's "Biblical rights" over the all
| of middle-east!
| dlubarov wrote:
| "a group of religious fundamentalists" led by...
| Netanyahu, who is completely secular if not an atheist.
| How does this narrative make sense?
|
| (Of course some Israel politicians are religious; that's
| true of any country.)
| thisislife2 wrote:
| You don't judge a person by what they say, but what they
| ultimately do - Netanyahu is a right-wing religious
| fundamentalist as is evident by the kind of right-wing
| identity politics he practice, his support for the
| assassination of Israeli (and Palestinian) leaders who
| didn't support his political ideology and sought peace (
| _Israel PM Netanyahu denies incitement before murder of
| Rabin_ - https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-pm-
| netanyahu-denie... , _Will Israel ever have another
| leader who truly wants peace?_ -
| https://forward.com/opinion/780946/yitzhak-rabin-
| assassinati... ), his attempts to usurp democracy in
| Israel and become a dictator ( _If Benjamin Netanyahu and
| his coalition have their way, my country could
| deteriorate into a dictatorship._ -
| https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/israel-
| ben... ), his calls for the genocide of the Palestinians
| in Gaza, and the military sanction for the actual ongoing
| genocide in Gaza (and now in West Bank). The Likud party
| he leads emerged from a terrorist organisation that
| conducted Hamas like massacres of the Palestinains. (
| _The Terrorist Forefathers of Israel: The Irgun and Lehi_
| - https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/03/the-terrorist-
| forefathers... ).
|
| If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and does
| what a duck does, it is a duck.
| YZF wrote:
| Netanyahu is not religious. He is, as the parent says,
| secular. If my cat quacked he's still not a duck.
|
| There is "religion" in the broader sense which can be any
| set of beliefs but Netanyahu is as secular and logical as
| can be. He may be overly logical in the sense of
| advancing his personal agenda (avoiding standing trial)
| over the interests of his country but he's still very
| different than the religious crazies in Tehran where
| logic plays no role and g-d is everything.
| I-M-S wrote:
| I agree that one must be quite illogical and committed to
| some grander creed to issue a prohibition on nuclear
| weapons while Israel and USA are doing everything in
| their very much nuclear power to destroy you.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_agai
| nst...
| YZF wrote:
| It's definitely illogical to enrich materials to nuclear
| grade and invest immense amounts in bunkers with
| centrifuges while saying you don't mean to have nuclear
| weapons.
| rayiner wrote:
| Territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing boils down to
| "more resources for me and those most closely related to me
| genetically." It's difficult to think of a course of action
| that is more materialist and less abstract.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| I have a very hard time understanding how the US is attacking
| Iran because of Christianity. I cannot even anticipate the
| hypothesis.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Buddhism_
|
| No one lives up to their ideals on a day-to-day basis:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide
| HerbManic wrote:
| When it comes to battles of religion, Alan watts said it best.
|
| "Since opposed principles, or ideologies, are irreconcilable,
| wars fought over principle will be wars of mutual annihilation.
| But wars fought for simple greed will be far less destructive,
| because the aggressor will be careful not to destroy what he is
| fighting to capture. Reasonable-that is, human-men will always
| be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized
| themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an
| ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them
| the enemies of life."
| jackcosgrove wrote:
| Complexity can lead to "more is different" outcomes at higher
| strata. I would not say reified concepts are "made up" as they
| can have very real effects on both higher and lower strata.
|
| The fallacy of reification is treating something emergent as a
| thing-unto-itself rather than a process or interaction born
| from constituents at a lower stratum. A reified thing can be
| recognized and changed for this reason. A mental concept needs
| only a change of mind to mutate, or to be destroyed.
|
| Religion may well prove to be a reification that is destroyed
| once it is recognized as such. But I do believe that you cannot
| reduce that which is real and not real to only those things
| that have physical antecedents at lower strata, as we see
| emergent phenomena in the physical world as well.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| Good. Let them have it!! Free Iran!
| vcryan wrote:
| Most people's definition of freedom isn't being bombed by the
| US and Israel.
| jackdoe wrote:
| special operation
| aeon_ai wrote:
| The most likely and capable retaliation will be cyber/info wars.
|
| Iran has sophisticated influence operations and will likely flood
| social media with disinformation designed to deepen political
| divisions and erode trust in institutions.
|
| This advice serves even if you don't believe the above. Be deeply
| skeptical of all viral content in the coming days and weeks,
| especially anything designed to change your opinions, or provoke
| outrage/fear. Verify before sharing. Expect deepfakes. Stick to
| primary sources when possible.
| apples_oranges wrote:
| I hate that we apparently have to take sides when commenting ..
| tyleo wrote:
| You don't have to take sides. I haven't landed on a particular
| POV here. You're free to take a breath and think about things.
| Bender wrote:
| Comment freely. Ignore karma. Here are some uBlock rules that
| help: # HN Block Karma View
| news.ycombinator.com##.comhead .score:style(overflow: hidden;
| display: inline-block; line-height: 0.1em; width: 0; margin-
| left: -1.9em;) news.ycombinator.com###hnmain > tbody >
| tr:first-of-type table td:last-of-type .pagetop:style(font-
| size: 0!important; color: transparent!important;)
| news.ycombinator.com###hnmain > tbody > tr:first-of-type table
| td:last-of-type .pagetop > *:style(font-size: 10pt; line-
| height: 1.45em;)
| news.ycombinator.com###logout::before:style(content: "|";
| padding: 0.25em;)
| news.ycombinator.com##form.profileform tbody tr:nth-child(3)
| news.ycombinator.com###karma
| croes wrote:
| > Iran, pledging to lay waste to the country's military and
| obliterate its nuclear program.
|
| Is that the same program that was totally obliterated in June
| 2025 according to Trump?
|
| "Obliterated like nobody's ever seen before"?
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Needs a war to cancel the mid terms.
| samrus wrote:
| Regarding the protests in the preceding week, while the iranian
| people probably had valid problems with their government, its so
| pbvious the actual scenes we saw in the news were orchestrated to
| manufacture consent. Its barely hidden anymore.
|
| If you see a sudden uptick in protests in a country the US/isreal
| see as an enemy, you can bet its probably just the step in the
| playbook preceding military action
| throwawayheui57 wrote:
| Protests have been happening in Iran for years and their
| frequency and depth increasing. Last one was "Woman life
| freedom" movement because the government killed a girl for bad
| hijab.
|
| It's not new, you just started paying attention now.
| samrus wrote:
| I know its not new, the iranian governemnt has always been
| cruel to dissidents. I guess my point is a sudden uptic in
| participants and media coverage of them is the indicator of
| manufactured consent
| throwawayheui57 wrote:
| Ok I get your point. You mean the uptick in US/Western
| media coverage? I do agree and don't think whatever we're
| witnessing right now is for the good of the people of Iran!
|
| Also the scale in which people were killed in Iran in such
| a short time (even if you believe the Iranian state media)
| was unprecedented. So there's that too.
| bluGill wrote:
| The protests were there before. Maybe you didn't know about
| them, but many people have been protesting. These are 40 day
| protests - iran funerals are 40 days afer the death, and 40
| days ago iran killed tens of thousands of protesters who now
| are having funerals. (Iran deach culture is more complex than
| that, but for discussion the above works)
| udioron wrote:
| I believe this is related for Iran's decades old calls for "Death
| to America"/"Death to Israel".
| tw04 wrote:
| I believe that's related to Israel's genocide of Palestinian
| children and America's unending unconditional support of the
| same.
| udioron wrote:
| No, it's because of the country is run by fanatics.
| tw04 wrote:
| Israel? Or the US? Because it would seem all three
| countries are run by fanatics that just believe in a
| slightly different version of the exact same story that
| they call a religion.
|
| I take that back, Trump doesn't believe in anything but
| himself, but he's surrounded himself in a blanket of
| Christian nationalists.
| udioron wrote:
| Trump will be out of office in a couple of years, and
| hopefully Netanyahu as well. That's how democracy works.
| Israel has 20% muslim citizens, with muslim parties and
| parliament members, cities and vibrant Arab communities.
| They can work with liberal Jewish Israelis and kick out
| Netanyahu if they are smart. Much better then war and
| blood.
| tw04 wrote:
| > Trump will be out of office in a couple of years, and
| hopefully Netanyahu as well.
|
| Trump has said numerous times he's going to run a third
| time and there's no indication the Supreme Court has any
| ability to stop him.
|
| We'll see how democracy holds up when people
| intentionally are derelict in their duties.
| udioron wrote:
| I really dislike Trump. He is not my type at all. I
| dislike religion and consider myself a liberal - but:
| Trump said "help is on its way" on Jan 13, and today
| Khamenei is dead. He kept his words. Free Iran!
| udioron wrote:
| Leta hope the good side wins.
| udioron wrote:
| Anyway, sticking to the "Death to America" strategy and
| choosing to run a global proxy war and killing their own
| people, instead of choosing peace, have led to this moment.
|
| Lets pray for the people of Iran we get rid of the regime
| this time, and eventually reach peace in the middle east.
| udioron wrote:
| Hopefully Khamenei is dead. Sticking with "Death to Israel"
| was not a good plan for him. I hope the regime goes down
| ASAP.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| > Death to....
|
| Is the translation "Down with....".
| udioron wrote:
| No it's not.
| coffinbirth wrote:
| > _Iranian media now report 40 killed and 48 students injured
| following the strike on a girls' elementary school in Minab, as
| rescue and recovery efforts continue._
|
| Congrats America!
| coffinbirth wrote:
| UPDATE: Reports now say that over 80 school children between
| the age of 7 and 12 were killed in Minab.
|
| How is the Epstein Regime going to survive this politically?
| How is the Senate (Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, etc.) going to
| survive this politically?
| derwiki wrote:
| I think you forgot /s to your last two points
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| No need to worry. They have extensively stress-tested the
| American public over the past few years and the conclusion is
| clear: Americans are never going to revolt no matter what you
| do to them.
| vkou wrote:
| He could drop a bomb on a school in Ohio, and still enjoy 40%
| support. There is no red line for these people.
| shykes wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47199047
| Rover222 wrote:
| And the tens of thousands of Iranians murdered for protesting?
| Did you care about them?
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| Did Israelis kill them? No. So, why would anyone care?
|
| Did you see non-stop coverage about it from NYT, WaPo or
| others? No.
| za3faran wrote:
| It's baffling to see the lengths people will go to justify
| israeli crimes.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| It's baffling to see the lengths people will go to ignore
| crimes in general unless they are can be somewhat tied to
| Israel.
| za3faran wrote:
| That's not the case at all. Some of us don't take our
| news from biased US sources.
| ozgrakkurt wrote:
| Can you explain how this relates to that?
|
| Some people are getting killed so more people should be
| killed?
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| 10s of thousands of women and children were killed by the
| regime... so they have no right to complain that these
| pretend attacks have killed children
| tredre3 wrote:
| > these pretend attacks
|
| Feel free to disagree with the death tolls and the
| demographics of the victims, but the bombings are very
| much real...
| lopatamd wrote:
| You really believe that news that comes from Iran media at this
| point?
| HaloZero wrote:
| Easy, it was Israel that probably did it and it's been shown
| time and time again that they can do this without political
| fallout under the guise that the target was a hiding spot for
| the military assets of Iran (or Hamas in the case of Palestine
| bombing).
| jraby3 wrote:
| It's been shown time and time again that the world will eat
| up any propaganda against Israel without waiting to hear any
| facts at all.
| nullocator wrote:
| It's been shown time and time again that some people will
| eat up Israeli propaganda and completely ignore facts and
| abject reality.
| hightrix wrote:
| Those videos of Israeli soldiers raping prisoners, beating
| prisoners, spitting on or beating people just walking in
| the streets.
|
| Yeah, so much propaganda. We can see it with our own eyes.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Easy, it was Israel that probably did it and it's been
| shown time and time again that they can do this without
| political fallout under the guise that the target was a
| hiding spot for the military assets of Iran (or Hamas in the
| case of Palestine bombing).
|
| Are you claiming that Iran (or Hamas) site their military
| bases away from schools (or hospitals)?
| sirfz wrote:
| No he's saying that israel intentionally bomb schools and
| hospitals
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| As an Iranian-American that's familiar with the regime, I would
| take that with a grain of salt. I saw this being reported from
| the Iranian regime themselves and they know how to manipulate
| optics and media really well. It's possible, but needs
| verification. I would also not put it past Iran to build their
| military infrastructure around schools intentionally (similar
| to Hamas with hospitals) in the hopes that it has this exact
| effect. Of course that does nothing to take away from the
| tragedy of innocent people dying and I'm not trying to negate
| that in any way, just something to point out.
| shykes wrote:
| 100%. In another comment [1] I drew a parallel with the Al-
| Ahli hospital incident in Gaza. Once you understand basic
| information warfare tactics, they're easy to spot. Why
| newsrooms still fall for it so easily is the real mystery...
|
| I bet this story is a fabrication as well.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47199047
| amrrs wrote:
| Why are you religiously defending Israel?
|
| And you already bet this story is a fabrication as well.
|
| This is exactly who media takes advantage of not the one
| who waits for investigation and acts rationally.
|
| If going by your recent comments, I can say I bet you're
| just an Israeli propagandist. Would you be happy with that
| assesment?
| yoavm wrote:
| Iran tends to lie about these things while Israel usually
| says the truth, at least after running an investigation.
| It's pretty simple: one is a dictatorship without free
| media, and the other one isn't. It's easy to lie when you
| can tell the newspapers what to write, and it's much
| harder when they're doing their job. You want an example?
| Khamenei. Iran says he's safe and wasn't hurt. Israel
| says he's dead. Let's see.
| sirfz wrote:
| You being Iranian-american bares no weight on your opinion
| throwaway982323 wrote:
| why should it not?
| tryauuum wrote:
| why?
| cheema33 wrote:
| The idea is that criticism of Iran from an Iranian-American
| would have more merit. However, we have no way to confirm
| the validity of this claim. It could very well be someone
| pretending to be an Iranian-American.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > Iranian media
| nailer wrote:
| Iran regime launched a missile during their last ditch attack
| on every country in the middle east and it fell on a school.
| RalfWausE wrote:
| To hell with america!
| lucasRW wrote:
| Hopefully they finish the job this time and rid us of this
| horrible islamist regime, to make Iran great again !
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| "This war like the next war, is the war to end all wars"
|
| - David LLoyd George, c.1916
|
| The first wars were fought between tribes and then later between
| kingddoms for power/minor differences and trying to increase
| influence and alliances. Religion and race and many other
| discriminating factors are used for both sides to get support of
| the people, the people who are actually gonna carry the rifle and
| risk their lives and lose it, this drives the next war to redeem
| the losses of the first one, to take revenge.
|
| This then creates a community which dislikes the other community
| and now we are here.
|
| We do not like to be robbed of an enemy; we want someone to have
| when we suffer. ... If so-and-so's wickedness is the sole cause
| of our misery, let us punish so-and-so and we shall be happy. The
| supreme example of this kind of political thought was the Treaty
| of Versailles. Yet most people are only seeking some new
| scapegoat to replace the Germans.
|
| - Bertrand Russel in Skeptical Essays.
|
| Humanity has had a history written with bloodshed but the problem
| right now seems to me that we don't know how to write future, we
| lack a vision for other prospects, it seems to me that we jump
| into the newest Hype on the block and its all so wishy-washy.
| Contrary to people saying its a western issue, I think its an
| whole world issue, its just that the west is particularly
| impacted by it.
|
| Has there been a desensitization in things in recent years?
|
| I know of atleast one leader (King Kaniska) who fought for land
| (Modern day Orrisa) and won and then saw the bloodshed and
| screams on the ground and decided to not repeat it and I think he
| spent later of his life trying to promote peace.
|
| I am sure that there must be other leaders in the history of past
| as well but perhaps its the problem of history as well which can
| sometimes glorify wars.
|
| I think the biggest problem right now is being noise. We have
| created machines so large that humans have lost dignity and are
| treated unfairly at scale in terms of Renting places at scale
| owned by shell companies who'd rather have it empty than give you
| affordable housing. Prices seem to be increasing and I don't
| think modern social media helps in giving people dignity quite
| the opposite at times and it's very likely someone is reading
| this who may have contributed to making the machine.
|
| With this being a political thread, I see comments from both
| sides[0], I don't think I have too much to add politically to the
| discussion but perhaps I just wanted to treat out that its best
| we treat each other with dignity in this thread and in general
| because I do believe that's the only thing we can do which can
| bring change. It's gonna be extremely hard for people to treat
| others with dignity while taking sides which talk about wars
| killing people, but I don't know what else to say. Iranian
| censorship for its people but I am not sure if the current idea
| of America brings me thinking of liberation. One can wish for
| pure democracies in such regions but its gonna be extremely hard
| and even grass-roots movements of these can be shut down by
| intrusive forces whether foreign or govt itself and given that
| the region is extremely shaky relying on oil which can be
| extracted from ground leading to a less dependence on people
| themselves for Iranian govt.s being the reason why they can be so
| censoring. They have shown enough power to fight massive protests
| but as I said earlier, the current picture of America don't
| exactly give me the idea of bringing pure democracy in the region
| either.
|
| My prayers to the Iranian people who are stuck between a rock and
| tough spot.
|
| (there are no sides, its a circle, a circle of people who start
| wars and the people who fight wars)
| consumer451 wrote:
| Here is a 12 minute video showing OSINT of various attacks, and
| Iranian counter-attacks.
|
| https://youtu.be/ZmtRhiI9uWU
| neves wrote:
| Iran has marvelous cities, sim of the greatest humanity
| archeological treasures.
|
| It hurts my heart to see Americans destroying them (and the
| thousands of lifes).
| squidbeak wrote:
| Iran also has a gang of murderous theocratic nutters running
| it, massacring their citizens for taking to the streets and
| singing songs, undermining foreign societies, and lending their
| knowhow and drones to other, bigger psychopaths for their
| invasions. It'll gladden my heart if the leadership is
| destroyed, even if some old pretty masonry gets chipped along
| the way.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| > massacring their citizens for taking to the streets and
| singing songs
|
| The US is also doing this albeit fewer people.
| Murfalo wrote:
| "fewer" doing a lot of work here
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Isn't Iran also famous for destroying landmarks that don't
| glorify the official state religion?
| ubixar wrote:
| I've long suspected DJT is on a rampage of radical, ragebait news
| worthy actions to take the news away from the Epstein files. I
| hate that it's working and many people have to suffer because of
| it.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| People are posting these choice quotes:
|
| "In order to get elected Barack Obama will start a war with Iran"
|
| --Donald Trump, Nov 29, 2011
|
| "Barack Obama will attack Iran to get re-elected."
|
| --Trump, Jan 17, 2012
|
| "Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin watch for him to
| launch a strike on Libya or Iran. He is desperate."
|
| --Trump, Oct 9, 2012
| niels8472 wrote:
| Ill doers are illdeemers.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| During the election MAGA was yelling that Kamala Harris was
| going to bring us into war with Iran. They are real quiet now,
| as usual. Republicans are always the same, cut benefits to the
| poor, cut taxes on the rich, war with the Middle East. Every,
| single, time.
| tlogan wrote:
| I hope this war will be short. And that the result will be Iran
| becoming a democracy that fully joins the global community. The
| Iranian people (Persians, Azerbaijanis, Kurds, and others),
| deserve better.
|
| It would benefit the entire world to see Iran integrated and
| engaged internationally.
| voganmother42 wrote:
| the drones just have to fly slower for the kids and
| schools..."Easy, you just don't lead 'em so much"
| rcbdev wrote:
| > Fully joins the global community
|
| If by that you mean that Iran will become a toothless vassal
| state of the U.S.-Americans, then God forbid.
| tlogan wrote:
| What do you mean by "toothless"?
|
| I was thinking more along the lines of Japan or South Korea.
| Militarily restrained, but prosperous and strong.
|
| I understand that recent military actions have often made
| things worse, not better. I am just trying to stay
| optimistic. From what I know, many Iranians are not
| enthusiastic about religion controlling law and politics.
| epsters wrote:
| There is zero likelihood of that. The IRGC and Iranian forces
| are a million strong and have a loyal base of support among the
| population. Without boots on the ground, relying on air power
| and 'moderate rebels' you are looking at at least a decade of
| war (using Syria and Libya as best-case-scenarios examples;
| Assad regime was nothing like the Iranian). The Israelis are
| dividing the opposition by pushing the out-of-touch monarchists
| as their would-be puppets and the Trump regime are backing them
| too. Which means they are not even seriously pushing any viable
| or credible alternative. They are likely arming the Kurdish and
| other ethnic factions in the region and stoking ethnic
| conflict. It is in Israel's interests to prolong the conflict ,
| to degrade Iran's military and economy (like they did in Syria)
| and even break it up into smaller manageable parts. The
| monarchists are a moon-shot; Reza Pehlavi is not his father
| (who also was a US puppet) - Israelis like him because he will
| be weak and pliable and completely dependent on foreign
| patronage.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan
| moxifly7 wrote:
| Interesting point on Israel pushing for the monarchy to come
| back.
|
| Democracy in the middle-east does not result in Israel or US
| aligned governments, but the monarchies have proven more
| interested in preserving their autocratic dynasties and quite
| easy and eager to work with Israel and the US to preserve
| themselves.
| jraby3 wrote:
| Aside from Israel are there any democracies in the Middle
| East?
| tlogan wrote:
| Lebanon is democracy. It is true that system is sectarian
| (power-sharing among religious groups) but still a
| democracy.
| moxifly7 wrote:
| My observation was that more democracy in the Middle East
| is not what Israel or the US is interested in, given that
| the people's choice there would be overwhelmingly against
| Israeli and US interests.
|
| They replaced the last democratic choice in Egypt with
| another military dictator, they keep the widely unpopular
| autocrat in Jordan on his throne with military and
| intelligence subsidies, have established and propped up a
| network of autocratic Gulf states that toe the line...
|
| So yeah, I would not be surprised that Israel and the US
| would be more than happy to but a scion of the previous
| Iranian autocratic dynasty back on the throne there.
| padjo wrote:
| Iran elects their President. Is it a shining example of a
| democracy, no, but it has a much stronger democratic
| tradition than say Saudi Arabia. If the US and British
| hadn't been meddling there for the last 70 years it would
| probably be a secular democracy now.
| weatherlite wrote:
| They elect someone from a short list approved by the
| supreme leader...who will execute policy dictated to him
| by the supreme leader. Plus thousands of Iranians are
| executed yearly for crimes against the regime (make it
| tens of thousands in 2026). Calling Iran a democracy is a
| joke, it's a brutal dictatorship.
| padjo wrote:
| Did I call it a democracy?
|
| Anyway, democracy is not a binary. You'd be unlikely to
| call ancient Athens a democracy by modern standards and
| yet...
| frmersdog wrote:
| Israel's a democracy the way the 3/5ths compromise
| promoted democracy.
| JanisErdmanis wrote:
| This is unlikelly because Iranian regime is going to execute
| false flag operations against their people to steer public
| opinion in their favour.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| Not if the US kills the whole regime. They certainly have the
| firepower. And Israel has the intelligence.
| pphysch wrote:
| There is virtually zero recent historical precedent supporting
| your wish, and plenty of precedent suggesting the opposite will
| happen.
| tlogan wrote:
| I wonder why that is.
|
| We saw significant success with Germany, Japan, South Korea,
| and other countries in the past. But more recently, similar
| efforts seem to have ended in failure.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| We fully went into those countries and were willing to
| spend decades rebuilding them.
|
| They're also nice countries, with governments and
| organisation. Places like Afghanistan have nothing. You
| have to try and start civilisation from scratch, in a
| hostile land.
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| I know a lot of the responses are skeptical (for good reason),
| but the opportunity is certainly there. The pro-regime
| population is aging out, with the more secular youth taking
| hold. There has always been an appreciation for American
| culture (specifically) amongst the general population. This was
| true when I was there in the 80s and increasingly more true
| over the decades since. Concessions by the regime over the
| hijab laws is one example of the society drifting more towards
| Western norms. Alcohol and western style parties are way more
| present in the society than ever before. Basically, the
| foundation for it is certainly there.
|
| Furthermore if Reza Pahlavi does manage to integrate into the
| society, he will most certainly use his business and political
| ties here in the US to westernize the society. He's said as
| much. Some of the more well known Iranian-American business
| leaders here in the US (CEO of Uber, CEO of intuit, founder of
| eBay for example) I'm sure would contribute to work towards
| this also.
|
| There will be push-back from rural areas (just like anywhere
| else) and the regime will not go away overnight, but the
| possibility does exist for this outcome. I think the biggest
| roadblock would be America and Israel intentionally preventing
| this outcome for the reasons that suit them geopolitically.
|
| EDIT: should have mentioned that after decades of widely known
| voter manipulation and more or less "mock" elections, Iranians
| would be happy to finally participate in actual democratic
| processes where their votes and voices matter
| jjfoooo4 wrote:
| This scenario always imagines that the people getting bombs
| rained down on them will somehow determine that their actual
| friends in the world are those dropping the bombs.
|
| Even accepting this, how exactly are these peaceful, western
| friendly civilians going to withstand a war better than their
| country's army?
|
| It's very depressing to see this playbook credulously trotted
| out yet again. When has this worked?
| tootie wrote:
| We literally just went through this with Venezuela. They
| replaced the dictator with the assistant dictator. The Iranian
| face of regime change making the rounds in Western media is the
| son of the last Shah.
| cc-d wrote:
| We all saw this coming decades ago, they weren't exactly subtle.
| globemaster99 wrote:
| Peace president ah? American terrorists never learn to mind their
| own business in their own country. Where are all the MAGA clowns?
|
| How exactly attacking Iran make their country great? Murdered
| million children in Iraq and now they started their terrorism in
| Iran.
| tim333 wrote:
| Some Iranian kids in Iran celebrating, I think
| https://x.com/shadygrooove/status/2027667467456442730
| I-M-S wrote:
| I know of at least 80 Iranian kids today who aren't in
| position to celebrate.
| toxik wrote:
| I don't think this is terrorism, that's not what the word
| means. It's a clear and open act of war, so in many ways much
| worse, but somehow terrorism is a scarier word.
| nicce wrote:
| > but somehow terrorism is a scarier word.
|
| It is, because it might impact normal citizens. Nobody has
| ever invaded US so coensequences of real war are unknown to
| most.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| My theory was they were waiting for the finale of Tehran on Apple
| TV
| ourmandave wrote:
| Again, little to no information for the US public. No approval
| from Congress.
|
| Calling for the people to rise up. You can't bomb your way into
| regime change. Are we supplying arms to groups?
|
| Is there a plan beyond pointless death and regional chaos the
| president would like to share?
| guerrilla wrote:
| > Are we supplying arms to groups?
|
| Yes. The US supports the monarchy, the Kurds and MeK. The CIA
| was revealed to have armed MeK (despite designation) and my
| guess is that they do with the Kurds too. The CIA also talks to
| the Balochi groups as well although I don't know how organized
| or armed they are.
|
| Needless to say, "regime change" would in reality mean civil
| war like Syria or collapse like Libya.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| Or Irak.
|
| The list of exemple is long enough, no need to add Iran.
|
| We already had ISIS thanks to the mess in Irak and Libya.
| PretzelPirate wrote:
| You spelled Iraq as "Irak". Is there a meaning to this? I
| couldn't find a reference but wonder if that's somehow a
| meaningful spelling.
| SSLy wrote:
| It's the spelling used by French, German and couple of
| neighbouring languages.
| t-3 wrote:
| Romanizations are fashion trends rather than any kind of
| science or real standardized system. Other than those
| places with Roman-era Latin spellings like Syria, others
| have dozens of variants.
| petre wrote:
| Yeah, he's probably French.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Well, Iraq is not that simple because Iran has also
| invested a lot in Iraq with various Shia forces. Right now
| Iraq is trying not to get involved. That's been their news
| all day. Maybe that is a sign that the Iranian investment
| is paying off, or just that the Iraqis are tired as fuck
| especially after the first Iran-Iraq invasion and then them
| being fucked by the US.
| etc-hosts wrote:
| The US has spent a lot of time and money on MEK but I don't
| think they are very effective. Or will be very effective. My
| understanding is the leader of MEK has n't been seen in
| years(is probably dead), and MEK members are only allowed to
| marry other MEK members, so the number of MEK members is way
| down from their 80s highpoint, and it's not getting better.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Yeah, my understanding as well. Seems more like a cult that
| the US got too excited about.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| ...In a couple of weeks.
| gruez wrote:
| >No approval from Congress.
|
| To be fair that's been the case for decades. Trump's hardly new
| in this.
| qup wrote:
| Needs to notify Congress within 48 hours (and he did
| beforehand), and has 60 days before needing Congress to
| declare war.
| xeromal wrote:
| Looking at the list of countries we have declared war on
|
| https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-
| procedures/declarations-...
|
| I don't think it matters.
| wat10000 wrote:
| For better or for worse, the War Powers Resolution acts as
| standing approval.
| Natfan wrote:
| > is there a plan...
|
| probably not, outside of making more revenue for raytheon
| parineum wrote:
| > No approval from Congress.
|
| I don't support it but there's blanket approval from Congress
| from the AUMF.
| pphysch wrote:
| And when was that approval passed?
| richk449 wrote:
| This authorizes an attack on Iran?
|
| SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as
| the ''Authorization for Use of Military Force''. SEC. 2.
| AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN
| GENERAL.--That the President is authorized to use all
| necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
| organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
| committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
| September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
| persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international
| terrorism against the United States by such nations,
| organizations or persons.
| kenjackson wrote:
| A plan? Actually there is. This is all part of the backdrop to
| end US elections. We can't have elections in the middle of a
| major war. And if we do have them we must greatly constrain how
| they are held while we are at war.
| idontwantthis wrote:
| That's an absurd stretch with no basis in fact or history.
| avaer wrote:
| The president said they should cancel the elections.
| skullone wrote:
| You must be ignorant - the entire republican leadership is
| telegraphing the cancel elections
| rdiddly wrote:
| Unfortunately, you can't dismiss it based on that. Most of
| what this administration does is an absurd stretch with no
| basis in fact or history.
| muwtyhg wrote:
| > We can't have elections in the middle of a major war.
|
| Yes we can? Is there any provision in the US Constitution
| that allows delay of election because of war? We have had
| elections during most of our recent wars (Iraq, Vietnam,
| Korea, Afghanistan).
|
| Trump could definitely try. Or pull an emergency card out of
| his ass. But it doesn't mean there is any provision for
| cancelling elections because of this 'war' with Iran (which
| they aren't even calling a war, but a "special combat
| operation" to get around congress having the war powers)
| kenjackson wrote:
| That statement was not on my voice, but the coming voice
| from this administration. IMO there is never a reason to
| withhold elections.
| jjk166 wrote:
| We had elections during WW2, the largest war of all time; we
| had elections during the civil war when confederate troops
| were 30 miles from DC. An air campaign in the Middle East is
| just another tuesday by comparison. This theory falls flat on
| its face - it is not a reasonable pretext for suspending
| elections, and this administration does not bother with
| creating pretexts for its power grabs.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Ah, but whether it is a "reasonable" pretext/excuse for
| suspending elections is up to the media and how they want
| to spin it for the masses, to shape their opinion, isn't
| it? And how practical, that more news outlets are now owned
| by MAGA people. Furthermore, I will not put it past Trump
| to use any flimsy excuse to suspend elections, if he thinks
| he will lose.
| ourmandave wrote:
| The president has no legal powers over elections, per the
| constitution. Only states can hold elections.
|
| Of course Trump and the GOP can try all sorts of voter
| suppression, which is what they're doing now.
| kenjackson wrote:
| What if Trump were to say elections are illegal due to
| the war. We need to delay them. And Republicans in
| congress did nothing. And the Supreme Court decided not
| to hear any cases related to it. What then? We're
| learning the US government has basically no teeth to stop
| something like this.
| loganc2342 wrote:
| It's a scary thought, albeit not a realistic one at the
| moment, thankfully. The Supreme Court has shown ample
| willingness to strike down blatant (and subtle, for that
| matter) executive overreach. Exhibit A is Trump's
| tariffs, which were justified by the administration to be
| legal through the International Emergency Economic Powers
| Act, which allows the president to
| "regulate...importation" during a declared state of
| emergency. The Supreme Court found that the wording in
| the act allowing the president to
| "regulate...importation" was not sufficient to grant the
| president the power to impose tariffs. The wording in the
| IEEPA is vague enough that you could go either way, but
| the conservative majority tends to follow the Major
| Questions Doctrine, which essentially says that in vague
| matters like this, assume that the power belongs to
| Congress and not the president.
|
| Meanwhile, delaying or canceling elections through
| executive order would be blatantly illegal, particularly
| when no conflict is taking place on U.S. soil. The case
| likely wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court, but if
| it did, I have no doubt elections would be promptly
| reinstated.
|
| I'm not saying the Supreme Court has a perfect record, of
| course. Not even two years ago, they essentially ruled
| that the president is above the law. But at least in
| matters regarding the balance of powers between branches,
| the Supreme Court is wary of the power of the executive
| branch, and that should certainly include the president's
| ability (or lack thereof) to interfere in elections.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Can you name something which can't be spun by the media
| or that you could not believe Trump would try to use as
| an excuse? If something is always true, it is evidence of
| nothing in particular.
|
| Claiming this strike on Iran is an attempt to suspend US
| elections is exactly as ridiculous as claiming the last
| round of strikes on Iran, or the Maduro raid, or any of
| Trump's other previous military boondoggles were attempts
| to suspend US elections.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| So, I heard Epstein started a war in the middle east...
| jimt1234 wrote:
| I've been trying to avoid the news for a little over a year
| now. I needed a detox. ... Is this true? That is, are there
| legitimate proposals to cancel or constrain the November
| elections in any significant way? Or, is this all
| speculation?
| bakies wrote:
| There's a memo out about nationalizing elections and
| there's the SAVE America act to require much stricter
| voting requirements. Both of these unconstitutional
| obviously because federal government doesn't run elections.
| jimt1234 wrote:
| Isn't this essentially what MAGA argued during the
| fighting over the 2020 election - that the states should
| be able to run their elections however-the-fvck they
| want, and the feds have no right tell the states how to
| run their elections?
| petre wrote:
| What, is the US Ukraine? Is it under attack?
| bakies wrote:
| When zelenskyy mentioned elections were suspended by the
| war to trump, in the Whitehouse while in a room full of
| media, trump replied something like "now that's a good
| idea"
| thisisit wrote:
| Campaign to move the headlines from Epstein to something else,
| perhaps?
| underdeserver wrote:
| I am saddened by all of these comments.
|
| Will not one of you try to steelman this decision? Or do you
| truly, fully believe the entire US government and intelligence
| complex, supported by roughly 50% of your compatriots, are
| warmongering baboons?
| jfengel wrote:
| Ok, fine.
|
| Israel is threatened by Iran. Iran has been working on nukes.
| There have been negotiations but they haven't been definitive
| yet, and Iran has never been a trustworthy negotiating partner
| anyway. That is why this President ditched the last round of
| agreements.
|
| That's the steelman. Reality is that half my compatriots are
| warmongering baboons.
| techblueberry wrote:
| I think it's possible it's a good decision (As with most wars
| in the middle east, I think hubris is playing a heavy role and
| we're underestimating the risks involved) but I think I'm in
| the minority and this is _not_ supported by 50% of my
| compatriots.
|
| I don't know if by 50% you're talking about left vs right, but
| I'm center left, and a decent number of center-left thought
| leaders support this action. I think the people who support
| this are a relatively narrow 25-30% of remaining neo(lib|con)s
| in the center, and the more left and the America First right
| crowd hate this. My guess would be loosely speaking Trump's
| base hates this more than the typical HN poster. Tucker Carlson
| for instance will be way more against this than anyone here.
| eleventyseven wrote:
| I am saddened by your gullibility. Your first instinct is to
| trust this administration? Who has repeatedly showed utter
| contempt for the very idea of truth, the constitution, the rule
| of law, and science, merely because half of American voters are
| brainwashed?
|
| This administration's arguments do not deserve to be
| steelmanned.
| rcbdev wrote:
| Yes.
|
| Greetings from the European Union.
| tryauuum wrote:
| If assume the goal of the US administration is to really limit
| the weapons of mass destruction
|
| then why the previous peacefull attempts were thrown out? I
| remember Iran agreed to limit the production or ivite the
| people to watch their actions, the US sanctions were even
| lifted in 2015. But then later reiplemented by the US for some
| reason.
|
| unrelated to all of this, I don't understand what's the problem
| is with a country developing nuclear weapons. US can nuke Iran
| with ICBMs anyway if they try to use them?
| whearyou wrote:
| What are the chances that HN is getting astroturfed these days?
| Are mods strict about it?
|
| I lots of relatively new accounts coming with what seems to me
| extreme, but altogether pop-culture acceptable opinions
| fsflover wrote:
| You should point out the exact posts.
| Bender wrote:
| _What are the chances that HN is getting astroturfed these
| days?_
|
| Happens all day every day. There are many AI agents starting
| discussions and replying to comments. This is how The
| Crappening started on 4chan. Some of them are just future
| grifters. Some are training AI _(I have replied to a few for
| fun)_. Some are propaganda bots. Those running the bots will
| reply with something equiv to _Errrm Proof??_ when called out.
| Without root I can not empirically prove it and the botters
| know that.
|
| I predict about 2 years before the site will have more AI noise
| than real people. I have no idea what can be done about it
| aside from tracking the bots and reporting them via email to
| Daniel and I don't know what he could or would do. HN has
| always been very hands off which is mostly good but not for
| this scenario. If nothing is done it will just be bots grifting
| and AstroTurfing one another to the benefit of Google SEO and
| most of the humans would eventually go elsewhere with exception
| of some die-hards that refuse to recognize the situation.
| worldsavior wrote:
| Maybe this comment is also AI.
| Bender wrote:
| _Maybe this comment is also AI._
|
| My nickname on here would at least suggest so. I think Grok
| is the closest option since they were working on making a
| snarky insulting version of their bot. Tame that down a bit
| and one could get the personality of Bender. [1]
|
| [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPNGFC7-t68
| [video][16s]
| nananana9 wrote:
| Anonymous internet forums will very likely die out if
| inference gets another order of magnitude cheaper.
|
| The only solutions are (1) private forums, (2) strict
| verification or maybe (3) some sort of "web of trust" thing,
| if someone manages to make it user friendly and not suck.
| Bender wrote:
| I agree and my bet is on private and semi-private _(invite
| only)_ forums making a come back. It is so much easier
| nowadays with so many Ansible playbooks and Dockerfiles to
| automate things.
| danielparsons wrote:
| we need to start a paywalled private HN forum
| hightrix wrote:
| 100%. Especially on topics involving countries with vast online
| propaganda operations.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| I've seen lots of suspiciously new accounts hoping into these
| conversations. Saying questionable things.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| With things like Openclaw it's kind of trivial to game forums
| now. You just have to tell an agent to "post arguments
| for/against this perspective on this forum." Give it a few
| talking points to include if you want to get specific and let
| it run. Specify the tone so it sounds realistic. It's literally
| going to do everything else essentially forever or until you
| run out of tokens. Comments in a forum are dirt cheap so it's
| also going to be very cheap.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Youd have to do a lot of work to make sure it's only a few
| short sentences, non-specific, and ultra-quippy though.
|
| I mean I'm sure it can be done but if you ask an LLM to
| produce comment reply without more instruction it's going to
| write something a lot more thoughtful, respectful, and
| substantive than a forum user would.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| It's not that hard. You can literally say between 2-4
| sentences.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| I mean does it matter?
|
| At this point, lines have been drawn. In conservative land,
| everything conservative is good, everything liberal is bad. So
| the only sane position to take is the complete opposite.
|
| For example, if you see someone self proclaimed liberal being
| critical of liberals, that person is probably a conservative or
| its a conservative bot.
| spaghetdefects wrote:
| That's not totally true when it comes to Zionism though. Much
| of the left and the right are united against Zionism. It's
| the older center liberals and right that are united in being
| pro-Zionism.
| sosomoxie wrote:
| I think this is probably happening, but also there are just a
| ton of actual Zionists and Israelis in the tech industry.
| Unfortunately they visit this site regularly and police it
| against honest reporting about their crimes.
| shykes wrote:
| > Unfortunately they visit this site regularly and police it
| against honest reporting about their crimes.
|
| I think that's called "disagreeing".
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Today we call that misinformation. Which of course _should_
| be totally illegal and in no way protected by free speech.
| fortzi wrote:
| Luckily you don't get to regulate who can participate in
| public discourse
| nonethewiser wrote:
| HN doesnt have any defense against it, and the userbase is
| small enough that it would be highly effective.
| nailer wrote:
| Mods are explicitly rolling back the no-political advocacy
| guideline - Dan G has said he's explicitly unflagging political
| content which is why HN is filled with left wing activism.
| Rover222 wrote:
| Iranians are celebrating, btw. This is what they have been
| dreaming of. This is their chance to finally take their country
| back, and I think they'll do it.
|
| I can't think of a better use of US military power in the world
| than to take out this terrible regime and let the Iranians do the
| rest. This isn't Iraq or Venezuela. People saying that we can't
| bomb our way into regime change apparently didn't follow the
| protests and massacres very closely a couple months ago. Iranians
| were begging for help so that they could topple the regime.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > People saying that we can't bomb our way into regime change
| apparently didn't follow the protests and massacres very
| closely a couple months ago. Iranians were begging for help so
| that they could topple the regime.
|
| Of course people didn't follow. Did you see any major news
| outlet doing live coverage of the events like they did for
| October 7th? No.
| dfedbeef wrote:
| Probably not the dead ones
| ozgrakkurt wrote:
| The news of bombs falling on schools must be really
| exhilarating to people. Especially for the ones that have
| children! Finally they have a chance to throw away their
| government and replace it with a military junta
| Rover222 wrote:
| Good job parroting Iranian propaganda
| judahmeek wrote:
| They didn't celebrate the last time Israel & the U.S. attacked
| them & they aren't celebrating now.
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/01/trump-kham...
|
| Successful regime change requires a far more significant
| investment in soft power than America & Israel's current right-
| wing leadership would even conceive of.
| hypeatei wrote:
| "Iran tried to interfere in 2020, 2024 elections to stop Trump,
| and now faces renewed war with United States"[0]
|
| So we're going to war with Iran based on election fraud
| conspiracies from MAGA?
|
| 0:
| https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1161475725227...
| stackedinserter wrote:
| Go America, go Israel, fuck ayatollahs.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| Un-redact the Epstein files.
| gnarlouse wrote:
| Classic playbook. This war will last the next three years. Trump
| admin will leak information and let Iranian cells in US cause
| terrorism, giving them the excuse to install domestic mass
| surveillance locally. They'll use that as a means to stay in
| power.
| gnarlouse wrote:
| what's going on in the epstein files that he's bombing iran
| globalnode wrote:
| this global escalation will be the reason elections are
| cancelled.
| aanet wrote:
| Apropos of nothing in particular, back in the previous
| millennium, UNIX (and Linux) had the `fortune` command. It would
| spew out a "cookie" - a pithy one-/two-liner, usually funny,
| often thought-provoking, and sometimes offensive (when invoked
| with `fortune -o`)
|
| I had added it to my `motd`; it would give me a chuckle every
| time I logged in.
|
| One of the cookies I recall:
|
| _A nuclear war can ruin your whole day._ [1]
|
| And that's what I think of when I see this absurd new war.
|
| [1] http://fortunes.pbworks.com/w/page/14107138/politics
| chinathrow wrote:
| That regime in the US. It is truly baffling.
| LarsDu88 wrote:
| The whole Anthropic DoW tiff was related to this, and folks were
| downvoting me even minutes before the first strike for making the
| connection:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47189853#47191060
| evan_ wrote:
| They're calling it Operation Epstein Fury
| throwaway20222 wrote:
| Even HN is astroturfed to heck and filled with bots. The ratio of
| good faith informed dialog to Reddit like slop in these threads
| is wild. The old HN would never have such "obvious" black and
| white answers.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| If Americans would like to better understand what it is that they
| actually did last year: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/killing-
| for-content/
| jmward01 wrote:
| Ok. So we have just taken out all of Israel's foes with force.
| They are safe now right? We can stop supporting them militarily
| in every way now right? They no longer need any weapons,
| intelligence support, defense support, etc, right? If this is the
| right path to their long term safety then this must be true.
| nailer wrote:
| Iranian regime was the entire middle east's foe, including
| Irans. Speak to your local Persian.
| I-M-S wrote:
| If by local you mean an emigre, they might be the worst
| person to ask.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| For sure a lot of people in Iran hate the regime. But given
| their 40 or so years of rule, I doubt they could achieve that
| without a strong basis.
|
| And yeah Iranians out of Iran definitely hate it too.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| To take a break from breaking havoc in Gaza, there was an
| israeli incursion into Lebanon (which included a fantastic
| supply chain attack) Then they tried to pick a fight in Siria
| for some BS reason (intervening Siria for protecting some jew
| friendly faction inside Siria, a la Russia protecting
| russiansnin Ukraine), then went to Iran, then continued milling
| Gaza, and now we are back at Iran, again.
|
| No, support will never falther.
| keernan wrote:
| Rep Raskin said his search of the unredacted Epstein files found
| Trump listed more than one million times.[1]
|
| And just days ago it was discovered that documents involving FBI
| investigations into allegations by one or more victims against
| Epstein and Trump were not released by the DOJ.[2]
|
| I trust Trump still has time to testify to Congress about his
| connections to Epstein like others have been doing.
|
| Meanwhile yesterday:
|
| >>>the U.S. designated Iran as a "state sponsor of wrongful
| detention" and demanded that the country release any Americans in
| its detention.[3]
|
| You just can't make this shit up.
|
| 1: https://www.axios.com/2026/02/10/trump-epstein-files-
| jamie-r...
|
| 2. https://www.npr.org/2026/02/24/nx-s1-5723968/epstein-
| files-t...
|
| 3. https://au.news.yahoo.com/us-designates-iran-state-
| sponsor-0...
| CrzyLngPwd wrote:
| USA, bombing for peace since bombs were invented.
| amelius wrote:
| With maps:
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0pnnj8xyo
| nasaeclipse wrote:
| All I can do is sit here and sigh.
|
| The thing is, as sudden as this seems to the general public, this
| is something that takes months of planning. Having served in the
| Navy for eight years, I know that this kind of thing doesn't
| necessarily happen overnight. That doesn't mean it _couldn't_.
| The US military certainly does have the ability to plan a strike
| very quickly.
|
| But, most likely, this was planned behind closed doors. Based on
| the reports, I bet this was probably planned shortly after Trump
| took office. It just so happens that it's a good distraction from
| the Epstein files.
|
| I hate the direction this country's government is taking. It
| sucks. I just want to leave at some point. I don't want my family
| to grow up here anymore.
| lukan wrote:
| Of course there was a military plan for this since months, but
| that does not mean that plan was surely to be executed. (A
| likely option I assume)
|
| What I find worrying is the standard tactic seems to be to do
| negotiations, let the other side assume there is hope for a
| other solution - and then attack hard all of a sudden. Already
| the second time. It might be effective short term, but it
| erodes what is left of trust negotiating with the US.
| tim333 wrote:
| This one isn't all bad. From Trump's recent speech:
|
| >Finally, to the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that
| the hour of your freedom is at hand
|
| It may not work but it's not a bad objective. My mum in the UK
| is a Bahai and a lot of those are refugees from Iran because
| they say be nice and tolerant and the Iranian government
| imprisons or kills them for so doing. Blasphemy etc. The are
| not a good lot.
| QuantumAtom wrote:
| I don't understand. I was under the impression that this a tech
| site. Why is there so much politics on here? What is all the rage
| bait. Are these bots or people who have inject politics and rage
| bait into every single place. Whatever you think of the
| Israel/Palestine conflict, maybe there can be places or website
| where some of us just want tech articles and interests.
| sriram_malhar wrote:
| Why is no one calling it the Epstein War?
| avazhi wrote:
| Iran: We are going to get nukes at any cost and wipe Israel and
| the United States off the face of the earth. It is our destiny.
|
| Israel and the US: You serious?
|
| Iran: Yes.
|
| ...
|
| Iran, after being bombed to a slightly earlier point of the Stone
| Age than they've spent the past ~50 years: We are working hard
| trying to find the guy responsible for this.
|
| FAFO, as they say. Meanwhile, literally the entire Middle East
| and the rest of the world besides Russia will be happy to see
| these clowns gone. Bon voyage.
| anjel wrote:
| If some chinese samples of this unstoppable carrier killer made
| its way to Iran already.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iran-nears-deal-buy-supe...
|
| Also, the US News media silence on this is noteworthy.
|
| https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=reuters+cm-302+missile&ia=w...
| chasd00 wrote:
| If Iran sinks a carrier then the us congress will declare an
| actual war and that will seal Irans fate. Also, seal the fate
| of hundreds of thousands of lives.
| randunel wrote:
| So US citizens like you actually expect other countries to
| accept being attacked by you without as little as defending
| themselves?
| anjel wrote:
| Please show where I said anything of the sort?
| randunel wrote:
| You are a us citizen and comment against the right of
| countries to defend themselves against the us. How come?
| anjel wrote:
| Still reading into my comment and intent. I simply posted
| as
|
| 1. an under-reported fact pertaining to matters of
| military strategy. 2. The lack of coverage in the US News
| Media
|
| BTW, you're also presumptuous AND mistaken about my
| nationality. As if nationality is a indicator or in your
| case a guarantee of a person's ideology.
| padjo wrote:
| It appears to be the position of much of Europe's leaders
| too.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Anyone can do whatever they want. I'm just saying sinking a
| us carrier doesn't stop the conflict and, instead, makes it
| 2 or 3 orders of magnitude worse.
| tim333 wrote:
| According to the Times of Israel Khamenei has been killed. I
| think that already counts as actual war.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Reuters coverage for those interested:
|
| "Khamenei's body has been found and he is confirmed dead,
| Israeli official says"
|
| <https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-crisis-live-explosions-
| te...>
|
| _Times of Israel_ :
| <https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-february-28-2026/>
| jopsen wrote:
| I'm not so sure.
|
| I think Trump would taco.
|
| A carrier is fair game, especially when you shoot first.
|
| There wouldn't be a coalition with half of Europe. Because of
| bridges burned.
| reese_john wrote:
| This seems to be a short range (290km) anti-ship cruise
| missile. Definitely not an unstoppable carrier killer
|
| What could threaten US carries are China's DF-21D/26D - anti-
| ship ballistic missiles with reported ranges of > 2000km - and
| Iran is not getting them
|
| https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-carrier-killer...
| wnevets wrote:
| Not a single person who claim Trump is a peace president will
| admit they are wrong.
| dennysora wrote:
| I think everyone should stop being so nervous. How many times
| have the U.S. and Israel hit Iran over the past two years? And
| people still aren't used to it? On Monday, the market might not
| even drop. In fact, a lot of people may want to buy the dip.
| Everyone hypes up the fear, the big players wait to scoop up
| bargains, and then what happens? Not only does it not fall, it
| rebounds instead. How many times have we seen this script
| already?
|
| And Iran? Every single time it's just performance art. I'm
| already sick of watching it.
|
| Besides, Iran has been heavily sanctioned and blocked by the U.S.
| and Israel for so many years that its impact on the global
| economy is basically zero. So what the hell is there to dump
| over?
|
| Oil prices? Venezuela's situation has already been dealt with.
| The U.S. can produce its own oil, Canada still has plenty of oil,
| and Russia is still selling at bargain-bin prices. Iran and the
| surrounding major oil-producing countries are barely even moving
| in sync, and there's basically no real incentive for anything
| major to happen to oil. So why the hell would the market drop?
|
| As for all this fearmongering, I'd say go harder. Seriously, make
| it as apocalyptic as possible, so my gold can moon, I can pick up
| cheap Taiwan stocks, and short crypto, so I can completely clean
| out all the people panicking in fear.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| Iran is the 5th biggest oil producer in the world. Not only
| that, it can cut-off the strait of Hormuz which 5 of the top 10
| oil producers ship their oil through, including Saudi Arabia
| which is the nr 1 exporter.
|
| In earlier strikes Iran signaled it did not want to escalate.
| It warned US bases prior to its attack, and sent small symbolic
| strikes to pacify their base, while trying to de-escalate
| through all diplomatic channels.
|
| This time it looks different, Israel/US have targetted their
| president and political (religious) leader. There is hardly a
| more existential threat you can imagine for the current regime,
| so it will do everything in its power to strike back. If you
| put someone with his back on the wall and start a firing squad,
| don't expect a non-response.
|
| Beyond that it's the middle east, last time US tried regime
| change we had two decades of violence with 1m Iraqi's dead and
| ISIS rampaging in the region. It's a human catastrophe that
| people are worried about, not just stock markets. To come here
| and talk about your stocks is insane.
| comfysocks wrote:
| Not the first time Trump has wagged the dog.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_dog
| helaoban wrote:
| "Trump Rolls the Dice on Regime Change" (1)
|
| What a headline. Anybody else have this on their election day
| bingo card?
|
| Midterms should be a blood bath though, right? Right? (insert
| Anakin meme).
|
| 1. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/trump-rolls-the-
| dice-o...
| shykes wrote:
| There are reports that Ali Khamenei has been killed:
|
| https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602280738
| sharadov wrote:
| Meanwhile Pakistan launched airstrikes on Afghanistan
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/feb/27/pakistan-...
| consumer451 wrote:
| Tough news day for anyone who has a difficult time holding
| contradictory ideas in their mind. Pretty sure that includes
| myself.
|
| On the one hand, Trump is awful for the USA, and the world.
|
| On the other hand, there is a possibility that the freedom-
| wanting citizens of Iran finally have a _slight_ chance of
| achieving their goal.
|
| The chance of something truly positive happening seems low.
| However, as someone who has, for years, watched what happens in
| Iran via the lens of https://old.reddit.com/r/newiran, I am
| allowing myself the slightest amount of hope. Iranian people
| deserve it.
|
| Of course, there is a large chance of this blowing up into
| something really bad for everyone.
|
| edit: This Ukrainian is currently live streaming with OSINT, and
| his takes align with many of my actual realist thoughts:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUdeA0zukq4
| cdrnsf wrote:
| Destroying alliances that took decades to build and then
| initiating multiple ill-advised military incursions is quite the
| play.
| cdrnsf wrote:
| I can't name a single thing this administration has done well, or
| competently and this is no exception. Unless, of course, you
| count killing innocent people between military action, aid cuts
| and ICE.
| moogly wrote:
| [T]he War Department will not be distracted by democracy building
| interventionism, undefined wars, regime change, climate change,
| woke moralizing and feckless nation building. -
| Pete Hegseth, December 6, 2025[1]
|
| [1]:
| https://www.war.gov/News/Speeches/Speech/Article/4354431/rem...
| dzonga wrote:
| one thing though - food and oil supplies at risk - if the
| airspace and shipping lanes remain shut down for 1 month or more.
|
| people in the Middle East will literally starve
|
| and china will run out of fuel - though they've gone mostly
| electric
| simonsarris wrote:
| > though they've gone mostly electric
|
| Who on earth told you this?
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
| namuol wrote:
| It's high time for regime change in the US.
| nullorempty wrote:
| Does this contribute to global warming? Are the governments
| waging war paying their CO2 tax?
|
| I'd think they emit _slightly_ more than a cow 's fart.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| War is the ultimate distraction.
|
| Clinton bombed Serbia for 1/100th the severity of the Epstein
| files.
| throw_rust wrote:
| I thought the forever wars and quarrels with people we know
| nothing of were over?
| abdelhousni wrote:
| Saving private Epstein has a nice ring to it
| xannabxlle wrote:
| I'm tired of Israelis killing innocent people
| fortzi wrote:
| Then wake up
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-28 23:01 UTC)