12 ms·

Iraq and Gaza was an absolute joke compared to what it would take to topple the Iranian militants, militias, and government. Much of the terrain is similar to

by ty6853 1y ago

Iraq and Gaza was an absolute joke compared to what it would take to topple the Iranian militants, militias, and government. Much of the terrain is similar to Afghanistan. Tribal islamic alliances are resilient against loss of central governance. There is a massive porous mountainous border to 2+ countries that conceivably will look the other way for certain islamic militants. I know everyone wants to gobble down the campaign about complete air superiority and toppling of leaders, and that WhatsApp may be separating the regime from 52 virgins, but realize this is a propaganda campaign. This initial propaganda only serves to manufacture consent long enough to buy citizens in to blood so they can't back out. We're in the process of being tricked.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Iraq and Gaza was an absolute joke compared to what it would take to topple the Iranian militants, militias, and government It wouldn't be a cake walk. But America could topple the government in Tehran about as easily as it did in Baghdad or, frankly, Kabul. The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't a failure to decapitate the opposing state. It was in filling the vacuum that left.
- msgodel 1y ago
  Why are we toppling all these foreign governments and creating instability that breads terrorism in places that otherwise have nothing to do with us? This seems so exceptionally counter productive.
  - fortzi 1y ago
    IRGC is known for funding and training militant and terrier groups globally. They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel). All the while running for The Bomb. I wouldn’t call the present sutuation stable.
    - msgodel 1y ago
      Oh no! Mean words! Anyway we have plenty of people here that hate the US and are far more likely to actually create a problem. Furthermore I'd argue the deficit spending (a very large portion of which is defense) is a much more serious existential threat.
    - greiskul 1y ago
      > known for funding and training militant and terrier groups globally So does the US. > They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel) You are literally calling for the annihilation of their state here. > All the while running for The Bomb. Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in war. There is definitely a cold war going on between Israel and Iran. I'm not sure if it escalating to a hot war would be better. The 20th century Cold War had all the same things you mentioned, with both sides fighting proxy wars, calling for the annihilation of the other side, and had atomic weapons. And I think everyone agrees that the end of the cold war that we had was definitely better than nuclear Armageddon. And I don't know if the 20th would have been better if only the US had atomic weapons. MAD might have saved millions of lives in both sides.
      - trustinmenowpls 1y ago
        > So does the US. nope. > You are literally calling for the annihilation of their state here. Nope, people are only calling for the unpopular regime to be replaced by a popular one. > There is definitely a cold war going on between Israel and Iran. Hezbollah is an actual arm of the IRGC so it's a hot war and has been for 25+ years.
        ty6853 1y ago
        Nobody is buying this bullshit anymore, we're not going down for your campaign to dupe us into "replacing a popular one" like happened in Iraq when the USA created a power vacuum and then much of it got taken over by ISIS, much of which was left to Kurdish and other local resistance groups to flush out after your deranged "nope. Nope," propaganda of lies military campaign ended.
  - noworriesnate 1y ago
    Because 1) America won’t allow nations near Israel to be successful, it’s too much of a threat to our greatest ally and 2) war is incredibly profitable.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - eddythompson80 1y ago
      > nations near Israel to be successful, I'm guessing that doesn't include Turkey or the rich oil arab states.
      - themgt 1y ago
        Actually they're already "joking" on Israeli TV that Turkey is next, and AEI is on the case making it clear we may need to go to war to take out Turkey next. https://x.com/clashreport/status/1935078004230865094 https://x.com/clashreport/status/1935078004230865094 https://www.aei.org/op-eds/israel-iran-war-dry-run-for-a-future-war-with-turkey/ https://www.aei.org/op-eds/israel-iran-war-dry-run-for-a-fut...
        tguvot 1y ago
        you going to omit that erdogan been threatening israel first ?
        tguvot 1y ago
        narrator yes, he will omit that president threatens another country but will make a big deal out of host on tv show Turkey's president has vowed to "liberate Al-Aqsa mosque" from Israel https://www.newarab.com/news/hagia-sophia-resurrection-paves-way-al-aqsa-liberation-erdogan https://www.newarab.com/news/hagia-sophia-resurrection-paves... Turkish President Erdogan did not hesitate to issue a rare threat to Israel in a party rally, speaking on the ongoing war in Gaza: 'Perhaps we will invade just like we entered Karabakh and Libya' https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/levant-turkey/artc-erdogan-threatens-to-invade-israel-just-like-we-entered-karabakh-and-libya https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/levant-turkey/art...
  - gspencley 1y ago
    > Why are we toppling all these foreign governments I don't want to speak to the other foreign governments, and I think there is a LOT of room for healthy criticism of how the USA handles its foreign policy, past & present. But to answer the question directly with respects to Iran, specifically: the leadership has been repeatedly chanting "Death To America" for its 45 year history and have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon program. It calls Israel the "Little Satan" and America the "Big Satan." A mantra often repeated: "First we come for the Saturday people, then we go for the Sunday people." Say what you want about the USA. I'll be the first to join you in criticism of many of it's foreign policy actions, including the 1953 CIA-backed Iranian coup that arguably led to the Islamic revolution in 1979 and got us the Iran we have today. And if people want to express concern for what evils could fill the vacuum if the current regime falls... fair. But I'm certainly not going to blame any free country for responding to an enemy state vowing to destroy it while actively trying to develop the means to do so. If there is ever any moral justification for going to war - that's it. It's defensive. That's arguably the only justification for going to war. Feel free to disagree with me about the threat that Iran poses to the western world. Maybe it's all propaganda and overstated. You're welcome to that theory. But this is the answer to the question: "Why should the USA get involved?"
    - ty6853 1y ago
      I don't pretend this is an argument at all in towards the situation in Iran, so don't quote me as justifying action or inaction there in regards to this, but it is interesting to take note North Korea actually has dozens of real nuclear weapons and the death to America rhetoric and all we seem to do is laugh at them. Of course NK has no real ability to blow up the US, but they could likely nuke or at least obliterate a sizeable piece of ally South Korea no problem.
      - gspencley 1y ago
        That's a very fair point. I think the difference is that Iran has been actively trying to follow through with its threats and this has been demonstrated through its actions towards an American ally over the past year. This gives reason to believe that Iran's threats are both credible and, while a full-scale war between Iran and the USA might not fare well for Iran ... you don't need to demonstrate that you are capable of wiping out a population or winning a war in order to represent a credible threat. If only one of Iran's missiles manage to land in a densely populated area... people die. And that's enough to warrant a response IMO.
  - dash2 1y ago
    Can you give an example since 2003?
  - toast0 1y ago
    A stable Iran seems to be doing a pretty good job of breeding terrorism, too though. If we're being extremely generous, the goal of regime change would be to bring a new stability with economic prosperity and inclusion as well as more meaningful political inclusion, so as to reduce the amount of marginalized population with nothing to loose that are easy to recruit for terrorism. Of course, when the nation building fails or is never even tried, it's pretty easy for recruiters to say "look around, they destroyed our country (with bombs or embargoes or tariffs or resource exploitation or offensive media), we have nothing to live for, and it's their fault; let's make them pay" I don't think you can stop all terrorism, but if you want to put a dent in it, you need to give the broad population hope for prosperity, and you need to fulfill that hope on the regular.
    - reillyse 1y ago
      What if we instead we were just responsible for killing all of their kids, would that work? I could see that working in the US just randomly kill a bunch of peoples kids and that would calm everything down.
    - platevoltage 1y ago
      You've got to be kidding me. The US actively supports and runs interference for the biggest terror state in the Middle East right now. We are also buddy buddy with another country in the Middle East that dismembered one of our journalists and provided most of the 9/11 high jackers.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    I'm willing to bet that the majority of Americans can't connect the dots between the Iraq War and the creation of ISIS.
    - ngruhn 1y ago
      I bet. The middle east is more complicated than quantum mechanics. There are like gazillions of factions, local and foreign. You would think you can roughly group them into Israel+US, Russia, Shia, Sunni. They surely all hate each other. But there are still constantly shifting alliances. At some point Iran (Shia?) was funding ISIS (Sunni?) only to later team up with the US and Israel to fight them. Sometimes all these islamist groups have a dude who looks like the leader but it's actually the guy two levels down who is the real puppet master. And everybody is known under at least three different names all of which are Al-something. I tried to read a book on this but you become this manic investigation board meme guy.
      - chimineycricket 1y ago
        Iran did not fund ISIS.
        dralley 1y ago
        Right, they do fund Sunni Palestinian groups, especially Hamas, but mostly they stick to Shia paramilitaries.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - c0redump 1y ago
        > Iran funding ISIS I’ll never understand the mentality of people who confidently yap about things that they don’t even have a basic understanding of. Iran didn’t fund ISIS, they are the ones who defeated it. ISIS was trying to destroy Assads government (Iranian ally), why would Iran fund them. Seriously impressive level of ignorance and hubris on display here.
  - reillyse 1y ago
    The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that there are some psychopaths in charge of American foreign policy and their thinking goes like this. 1) we want to control oil and oil prices because it’s crucial to our bank accounts. 2) if the Middle East unites we will lose control over oil 3) we must make sure they never unite 4) we need to support varying regimes to increase instability in the region. If we keep the Middle East fighting we can continue to extract oil. Lots has changed since 50s so one would think this strategy would get updated, but it seems it has not. (Also for the record I think this is abhorrent, but I think some people do think like this)
  - c0redump 1y ago
    Because they are threats to Israel.
- kibibu 1y ago
  Those things didn't seem very easy.
- Lordarminius 1y ago
  Baghdad and Kabul had nowhere near the military capabilities of the Iranians who can close shipping lanes, sink US warships and attack military bases and oil installations in the region, in addition to devastating all the major Israeli cities. In the chaos that ensues, the Chinese and Russians would move in and take advantage. The global economy would grind to a halt and America would spiral into a depression that would take at least a decade to recover from.
  - tguvot 1y ago
    how the "devastating all the major israeli cities" going ? or they didn't start yet
- candiddevmike 1y ago
  America really can't afford this right now. We spent _trillions_ on the last middle east operation.
  - noisy_boy 1y ago
    Money has never been a problem for America; it can just create it as per its needs.
    - FpUser 1y ago
      When every country lining up to buy US debt they can print as much money as they wish. Lately however that buying of the US debt does not seem as attractive as it used to be.
  - anadem 1y ago
    I don't think our current administration cares what we can afford
  - krapp 1y ago
    We can totally afford it, DOGE deleted a bazillion dollars worth of waste, so we have plenty of money to burn on another crusade in the Middle East! /s
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    America can ALWAYS afford war.
- mandevil 1y ago
  Afghanistan was in the middle of a semi-active civil war when the US joined the fray, and by providing large scale air support to Northern Alliance troops on the ground, the situation changed abruptly. Iraq involved multiple US divisions of troops, which took months to get into position to launch a large scale ground invasion. Libya was in the middle of a very active civil war when the US started Operation Odyssey Dawn(1). All of those cases involved a whole lot of troops on the ground, which is something that I see as notably missing from any plans discussed so far. Outside troops invading seems like a very bad idea, because Iran's population is about that of those other three combined. Operating sufficient outside country ground troops to topple the existing government would quickly lead to friction between civilians and the outside troops, which would almost certainly quickly turn into a revolt of some kind, and fatally undermine any government they attempted to put in place. Also, it would take a very long time for sufficient US force to topple the Iranian government to arrive in the area, and then either launch a D-Day style opposed amphibious assault or operate from one of Iran's neighbors with sea access (2). But because there is no preexisting Iranian civil war, there is no local source of ground troops either. I don't think we've ever seen a government toppled by external air-strikes alone. The general consensus from research is that being bombed makes citizens support the government more, not weaken their resolve. 1: It didn't lead to change of government, but Operation Allied Force- the NATO bombing of Serbia helped the Kosovo Liberation Army achieve their independence- again air-power supporting troops on the ground to achieve an aim, not air-power alone. What eventually toppled the government of Serbia was the Bulldozer Revolution a year later, with no outside military force involved. 2: Your choices are not going to be good ones. Iraq? Turkey through Kurdistan? Pakistan?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > All of those cases involved a whole lot of troops on the ground, which is something that I see as notably missing from any plans discussed so far Oh absolutely. I compared it to Kabul and Baghdad (and not Libya) for a reason. There is not a mobilised resistance in Iran. The lack of boots-on-the-ground plans is why I don’t see us teetering towards Iraq 2.0, but instead the U.S. eventually using bunker busters at Fordo and calling it a day. (To the extent we’re seeing the right recipe “liberation” rhetoric, it’s in respect of domestically deploying the military.)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- v5v3 1y ago
  Iraq and Afghanistan lacked friends though. Iranian Regime has strong backing from Brics and others.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Iranian Regime has strong backing from Brics and others The BRICS meme from a security standpoint is hollower than the financial one. Russia and China have no interest (the former, ability) in getting enmeshed in another Anglo-Iranian war. Most of the oil travelling through the Strait of Hormuz goes to Chinese refineries; they really don’t want this to escalate. Both would probably make the occupation phase painful for Americans. Like we did for the Soviets. And the Iranians did for us. But that’s again post-regime change, the part we’ve never figured out how to do since the Marshall Plan, and not in the toppling of the regime bit, which we’re ridiculously good at. The evidence for the above is the current lack of military or intelligence support anyone is providing Iran.
    - v5v3 1y ago
      Not true. Chinese planes with transponders being turned off are landing in Iran with unknown Cargo on board. (Reported across the news). Iran is supplying Russia with Drones for Ukraine so strategic partner. Russia recently lost Syria as an ally with the change in government, they will not want to lose Iran to the USA too. If the West can back Ukraine to the level they have done, then no different for Iran's friends to do the same.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        Everything you’re describing fits prolonging a guerilla conflict. That is, planning for post collapse influence. There is really only one thing Iran would sell its soul for right now, and it’s Russian or Chinese troops announcing that they’ve stationed themselves at Fordo. (Thereby turning an attack on the regime’s nuclear ambitions into an attack on a nuclear state.) > If the West can back Ukraine to the level they have done, then no different for Iran's friends to do the same Excluding China, orders of magnitude of differences in capability.
- rdm_blackhole 1y ago
  > It was in filling the vacuum that left. Maybe this was a question that should have been asked before these regimes were toppled but nobody bothered so here we are. Instead the US and it's allies come in with their big boots and try to give people "democracy" without thinking that maybe this is just not the right thing to do at this time. But we know better right? As if there aren't enough problems in the US and in Europe, we need to keep involving ourselves with conflicts that mostly do not concern us. This is a conflict in the middle east and the countries of this region should be in charge of trying to find a solution to it.
keybored 1y ago
> I know everyone wants to gobble down the campaign about complete air superiority and toppling of leaders, and that WhatsApp may be separating the regime from 52 virgins, but realize this is a propaganda campaign. This initial propaganda only serves to manufacture consent long enough to buy citizens in to blood so they can't back out. We're in the process of being tricked. Everyone wants to gobble down... I.e. here’s another invasion war but it’s our ally this time so it’s good actually. They’re gonna dezanify^W de-islamism Iran.
seydor 1y ago
Tribal?
- fakedang 1y ago
  LoL exactly what I thought. Persians are extremely proud of being NOT tribal, unlike their Azeri, Afghani, Turkmeni or Tajik neighbours. Most Persians consider themselves proud inheritors of the Achaemenid and Sassanid Empires.
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    There are in fact tribes of Turkmen, Shahsevan, Lurs, Qashqai and various Kurds in Iran.
    - fakedang 1y ago
      Yes, but overall the culture is not tribal, even amongst the Azeris of Iran (who were traditionally the largest tribal group in Iran). Within Iran, they see themselves along ethnic lines.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- mousethatroared 1y ago
  About 10-20% of the population.
Buttons840 1y ago
Iran has their terrorist group proxies throughout the region. I think there's some truth to this, although the actions of some truly rogue terrorist groups probably get blamed on Iran because it's been the zeitgeist for a few decades to find reasons to attack Iran. Whatever the case, the current Iran regime hasn't given nuclear material, chemical weapons, or biological weapons to these terror groups. If the current Iran regime is eliminated from afar, with some fly-by bombings or whatever, what happens in the chaos that follows? Nuclear material and other weapons do not poof out of existance when the government that created them falls. Which group will control the nuclear material going forward? Roll the dice to find out.
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
  America and Friends. And by that i include russia and china, because even they care about other countries not having nukes. If/when the regime falls nobody will be able to stop them. Just look at Syria.
  - Buttons840 1y ago
    How will America and Friends secure the nuclear material? Boots on the ground?
    - FridayoLeary 1y ago
      just a quick raid. The first thing to collapse would be the armed forces. It would be like stealing candy from a child.
mousethatroared 1y ago
And it's larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Both in population and surface area
bawolff 1y ago
I don't think anyone is suggesting invading with boots on the ground. It would be a blood bath, as you say, and nobody seems interested in that. I suspect what Israel is hoping for is that if they disrupt Iranian internal security enough, Iran wont be able to put down protestors. In the past there have been protests that Iran had to put down violently, so its not crazy. At the same time, hard to imagine anyone going out to protest while bombs are falling, and external threats tend to increase support for incumbants. So probably a long shot. What they will probably settle for is blowing up their nuke stuff and missles, hoping that the economic disruption of the war is enough that its too expensive for iran to rebuild it. Of course, nobody really knows.
- csomar 1y ago
  No, if you disrupt the current regime, you get something more extreme akin to ISIS. You can negotiate a peace deal with Iran, but you can't negotiate a peace deal with 50+ Islamic factions each running its own territory. That would require boots of the ground; and that's what the current leadership is looking for. The parent poster is correct. It is much easier to convince you into this if I tell you "We can solve the middle-east issues with just one click(bomb)!". That would get people in a FOMO where we have to act NOW and have this resolved quick and easy; or choose to be complacent and lose this opportunity. Of course we don't know how this will play out since we don't have any history except for the last 50+ years or so.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    > You can negotiate a peace deal with Iran, but you can't negotiate a peace deal with 50+ Islamic factions each running its own territory 50+ islamic factions are unlikely to be able to coordinate enough to produce advanced weapons. While its an unideal outcome, its not clear that it would be worse from the israeli perspective, and they are the ones dropping bombs. > Of course we don't know how this will play out since we don't have any history except for the last 50+ years or so. There are plenty of examples historically of coups and popular revolutions where the new gov takes over the existing state roughly in-tact. There are also many examples of what you are saying where the country decends into a civil war. If you want to use history as a guide i think you need to analyze things more closely.

by ty6853 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Iraq and Gaza was an absolute joke compared to what it would take to topple the Iranian militants, militias, and government It wouldn't be a cake walk. But America could topple the government in Tehran about as easily as it did in Baghdad or, frankly, Kabul. The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't a failure to decapitate the opposing state. It was in filling the vacuum that left.

msgodel 1y ago
Why are we toppling all these foreign governments and creating instability that breads terrorism in places that otherwise have nothing to do with us? This seems so exceptionally counter productive.
- fortzi 1y ago
  IRGC is known for funding and training militant and terrier groups globally. They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel). All the while running for The Bomb. I wouldn’t call the present sutuation stable.
  - msgodel 1y ago
    Oh no! Mean words! Anyway we have plenty of people here that hate the US and are far more likely to actually create a problem. Furthermore I'd argue the deficit spending (a very large portion of which is defense) is a much more serious existential threat.
  - greiskul 1y ago
    > known for funding and training militant and terrier groups globally So does the US. > They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel) You are literally calling for the annihilation of their state here. > All the while running for The Bomb. Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in war. There is definitely a cold war going on between Israel and Iran. I'm not sure if it escalating to a hot war would be better. The 20th century Cold War had all the same things you mentioned, with both sides fighting proxy wars, calling for the annihilation of the other side, and had atomic weapons. And I think everyone agrees that the end of the cold war that we had was definitely better than nuclear Armageddon. And I don't know if the 20th would have been better if only the US had atomic weapons. MAD might have saved millions of lives in both sides.
    - trustinmenowpls 1y ago
      > So does the US. nope. > You are literally calling for the annihilation of their state here. Nope, people are only calling for the unpopular regime to be replaced by a popular one. > There is definitely a cold war going on between Israel and Iran. Hezbollah is an actual arm of the IRGC so it's a hot war and has been for 25+ years.
      - ty6853 1y ago
        Nobody is buying this bullshit anymore, we're not going down for your campaign to dupe us into "replacing a popular one" like happened in Iraq when the USA created a power vacuum and then much of it got taken over by ISIS, much of which was left to Kurdish and other local resistance groups to flush out after your deranged "nope. Nope," propaganda of lies military campaign ended.
- noworriesnate 1y ago
  Because 1) America won’t allow nations near Israel to be successful, it’s too much of a threat to our greatest ally and 2) war is incredibly profitable.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - eddythompson80 1y ago
    > nations near Israel to be successful, I'm guessing that doesn't include Turkey or the rich oil arab states.
    - themgt 1y ago
      Actually they're already "joking" on Israeli TV that Turkey is next, and AEI is on the case making it clear we may need to go to war to take out Turkey next. https://x.com/clashreport/status/1935078004230865094 https://x.com/clashreport/status/1935078004230865094 https://www.aei.org/op-eds/israel-iran-war-dry-run-for-a-future-war-with-turkey/ https://www.aei.org/op-eds/israel-iran-war-dry-run-for-a-fut...
      - tguvot 1y ago
        you going to omit that erdogan been threatening israel first ?
        tguvot 1y ago
        narrator yes, he will omit that president threatens another country but will make a big deal out of host on tv show Turkey's president has vowed to "liberate Al-Aqsa mosque" from Israel https://www.newarab.com/news/hagia-sophia-resurrection-paves-way-al-aqsa-liberation-erdogan https://www.newarab.com/news/hagia-sophia-resurrection-paves... Turkish President Erdogan did not hesitate to issue a rare threat to Israel in a party rally, speaking on the ongoing war in Gaza: 'Perhaps we will invade just like we entered Karabakh and Libya' https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/levant-turkey/artc-erdogan-threatens-to-invade-israel-just-like-we-entered-karabakh-and-libya https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/levant-turkey/art...
- gspencley 1y ago
  > Why are we toppling all these foreign governments I don't want to speak to the other foreign governments, and I think there is a LOT of room for healthy criticism of how the USA handles its foreign policy, past & present. But to answer the question directly with respects to Iran, specifically: the leadership has been repeatedly chanting "Death To America" for its 45 year history and have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon program. It calls Israel the "Little Satan" and America the "Big Satan." A mantra often repeated: "First we come for the Saturday people, then we go for the Sunday people." Say what you want about the USA. I'll be the first to join you in criticism of many of it's foreign policy actions, including the 1953 CIA-backed Iranian coup that arguably led to the Islamic revolution in 1979 and got us the Iran we have today. And if people want to express concern for what evils could fill the vacuum if the current regime falls... fair. But I'm certainly not going to blame any free country for responding to an enemy state vowing to destroy it while actively trying to develop the means to do so. If there is ever any moral justification for going to war - that's it. It's defensive. That's arguably the only justification for going to war. Feel free to disagree with me about the threat that Iran poses to the western world. Maybe it's all propaganda and overstated. You're welcome to that theory. But this is the answer to the question: "Why should the USA get involved?"
  - ty6853 1y ago
    I don't pretend this is an argument at all in towards the situation in Iran, so don't quote me as justifying action or inaction there in regards to this, but it is interesting to take note North Korea actually has dozens of real nuclear weapons and the death to America rhetoric and all we seem to do is laugh at them. Of course NK has no real ability to blow up the US, but they could likely nuke or at least obliterate a sizeable piece of ally South Korea no problem.
    - gspencley 1y ago
      That's a very fair point. I think the difference is that Iran has been actively trying to follow through with its threats and this has been demonstrated through its actions towards an American ally over the past year. This gives reason to believe that Iran's threats are both credible and, while a full-scale war between Iran and the USA might not fare well for Iran ... you don't need to demonstrate that you are capable of wiping out a population or winning a war in order to represent a credible threat. If only one of Iran's missiles manage to land in a densely populated area... people die. And that's enough to warrant a response IMO.
- dash2 1y ago
  Can you give an example since 2003?
- toast0 1y ago
  A stable Iran seems to be doing a pretty good job of breeding terrorism, too though. If we're being extremely generous, the goal of regime change would be to bring a new stability with economic prosperity and inclusion as well as more meaningful political inclusion, so as to reduce the amount of marginalized population with nothing to loose that are easy to recruit for terrorism. Of course, when the nation building fails or is never even tried, it's pretty easy for recruiters to say "look around, they destroyed our country (with bombs or embargoes or tariffs or resource exploitation or offensive media), we have nothing to live for, and it's their fault; let's make them pay" I don't think you can stop all terrorism, but if you want to put a dent in it, you need to give the broad population hope for prosperity, and you need to fulfill that hope on the regular.
  - reillyse 1y ago
    What if we instead we were just responsible for killing all of their kids, would that work? I could see that working in the US just randomly kill a bunch of peoples kids and that would calm everything down.
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    You've got to be kidding me. The US actively supports and runs interference for the biggest terror state in the Middle East right now. We are also buddy buddy with another country in the Middle East that dismembered one of our journalists and provided most of the 9/11 high jackers.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- platevoltage 1y ago
  I'm willing to bet that the majority of Americans can't connect the dots between the Iraq War and the creation of ISIS.
  - ngruhn 1y ago
    I bet. The middle east is more complicated than quantum mechanics. There are like gazillions of factions, local and foreign. You would think you can roughly group them into Israel+US, Russia, Shia, Sunni. They surely all hate each other. But there are still constantly shifting alliances. At some point Iran (Shia?) was funding ISIS (Sunni?) only to later team up with the US and Israel to fight them. Sometimes all these islamist groups have a dude who looks like the leader but it's actually the guy two levels down who is the real puppet master. And everybody is known under at least three different names all of which are Al-something. I tried to read a book on this but you become this manic investigation board meme guy.
    - chimineycricket 1y ago
      Iran did not fund ISIS.
      - dralley 1y ago
        Right, they do fund Sunni Palestinian groups, especially Hamas, but mostly they stick to Shia paramilitaries.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - c0redump 1y ago
      > Iran funding ISIS I’ll never understand the mentality of people who confidently yap about things that they don’t even have a basic understanding of. Iran didn’t fund ISIS, they are the ones who defeated it. ISIS was trying to destroy Assads government (Iranian ally), why would Iran fund them. Seriously impressive level of ignorance and hubris on display here.
- reillyse 1y ago
  The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that there are some psychopaths in charge of American foreign policy and their thinking goes like this. 1) we want to control oil and oil prices because it’s crucial to our bank accounts. 2) if the Middle East unites we will lose control over oil 3) we must make sure they never unite 4) we need to support varying regimes to increase instability in the region. If we keep the Middle East fighting we can continue to extract oil. Lots has changed since 50s so one would think this strategy would get updated, but it seems it has not. (Also for the record I think this is abhorrent, but I think some people do think like this)
- c0redump 1y ago
  Because they are threats to Israel.
kibibu 1y ago
Those things didn't seem very easy.
Lordarminius 1y ago
Baghdad and Kabul had nowhere near the military capabilities of the Iranians who can close shipping lanes, sink US warships and attack military bases and oil installations in the region, in addition to devastating all the major Israeli cities. In the chaos that ensues, the Chinese and Russians would move in and take advantage. The global economy would grind to a halt and America would spiral into a depression that would take at least a decade to recover from.
- tguvot 1y ago
  how the "devastating all the major israeli cities" going ? or they didn't start yet
candiddevmike 1y ago
America really can't afford this right now. We spent _trillions_ on the last middle east operation.
- noisy_boy 1y ago
  Money has never been a problem for America; it can just create it as per its needs.
  - FpUser 1y ago
    When every country lining up to buy US debt they can print as much money as they wish. Lately however that buying of the US debt does not seem as attractive as it used to be.
- anadem 1y ago
  I don't think our current administration cares what we can afford
- krapp 1y ago
  We can totally afford it, DOGE deleted a bazillion dollars worth of waste, so we have plenty of money to burn on another crusade in the Middle East! /s
- platevoltage 1y ago
  America can ALWAYS afford war.
mandevil 1y ago
Afghanistan was in the middle of a semi-active civil war when the US joined the fray, and by providing large scale air support to Northern Alliance troops on the ground, the situation changed abruptly. Iraq involved multiple US divisions of troops, which took months to get into position to launch a large scale ground invasion. Libya was in the middle of a very active civil war when the US started Operation Odyssey Dawn(1). All of those cases involved a whole lot of troops on the ground, which is something that I see as notably missing from any plans discussed so far. Outside troops invading seems like a very bad idea, because Iran's population is about that of those other three combined. Operating sufficient outside country ground troops to topple the existing government would quickly lead to friction between civilians and the outside troops, which would almost certainly quickly turn into a revolt of some kind, and fatally undermine any government they attempted to put in place. Also, it would take a very long time for sufficient US force to topple the Iranian government to arrive in the area, and then either launch a D-Day style opposed amphibious assault or operate from one of Iran's neighbors with sea access (2). But because there is no preexisting Iranian civil war, there is no local source of ground troops either. I don't think we've ever seen a government toppled by external air-strikes alone. The general consensus from research is that being bombed makes citizens support the government more, not weaken their resolve. 1: It didn't lead to change of government, but Operation Allied Force- the NATO bombing of Serbia helped the Kosovo Liberation Army achieve their independence- again air-power supporting troops on the ground to achieve an aim, not air-power alone. What eventually toppled the government of Serbia was the Bulldozer Revolution a year later, with no outside military force involved. 2: Your choices are not going to be good ones. Iraq? Turkey through Kurdistan? Pakistan?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > All of those cases involved a whole lot of troops on the ground, which is something that I see as notably missing from any plans discussed so far Oh absolutely. I compared it to Kabul and Baghdad (and not Libya) for a reason. There is not a mobilised resistance in Iran. The lack of boots-on-the-ground plans is why I don’t see us teetering towards Iraq 2.0, but instead the U.S. eventually using bunker busters at Fordo and calling it a day. (To the extent we’re seeing the right recipe “liberation” rhetoric, it’s in respect of domestically deploying the military.)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
v5v3 1y ago
Iraq and Afghanistan lacked friends though. Iranian Regime has strong backing from Brics and others.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Iranian Regime has strong backing from Brics and others The BRICS meme from a security standpoint is hollower than the financial one. Russia and China have no interest (the former, ability) in getting enmeshed in another Anglo-Iranian war. Most of the oil travelling through the Strait of Hormuz goes to Chinese refineries; they really don’t want this to escalate. Both would probably make the occupation phase painful for Americans. Like we did for the Soviets. And the Iranians did for us. But that’s again post-regime change, the part we’ve never figured out how to do since the Marshall Plan, and not in the toppling of the regime bit, which we’re ridiculously good at. The evidence for the above is the current lack of military or intelligence support anyone is providing Iran.
  - v5v3 1y ago
    Not true. Chinese planes with transponders being turned off are landing in Iran with unknown Cargo on board. (Reported across the news). Iran is supplying Russia with Drones for Ukraine so strategic partner. Russia recently lost Syria as an ally with the change in government, they will not want to lose Iran to the USA too. If the West can back Ukraine to the level they have done, then no different for Iran's friends to do the same.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      Everything you’re describing fits prolonging a guerilla conflict. That is, planning for post collapse influence. There is really only one thing Iran would sell its soul for right now, and it’s Russian or Chinese troops announcing that they’ve stationed themselves at Fordo. (Thereby turning an attack on the regime’s nuclear ambitions into an attack on a nuclear state.) > If the West can back Ukraine to the level they have done, then no different for Iran's friends to do the same Excluding China, orders of magnitude of differences in capability.
rdm_blackhole 1y ago
> It was in filling the vacuum that left. Maybe this was a question that should have been asked before these regimes were toppled but nobody bothered so here we are. Instead the US and it's allies come in with their big boots and try to give people "democracy" without thinking that maybe this is just not the right thing to do at this time. But we know better right? As if there aren't enough problems in the US and in Europe, we need to keep involving ourselves with conflicts that mostly do not concern us. This is a conflict in the middle east and the countries of this region should be in charge of trying to find a solution to it.

keybored 1y ago

> I know everyone wants to gobble down the campaign about complete air superiority and toppling of leaders, and that WhatsApp may be separating the regime from 52 virgins, but realize this is a propaganda campaign. This initial propaganda only serves to manufacture consent long enough to buy citizens in to blood so they can't back out. We're in the process of being tricked. Everyone wants to gobble down... I.e. here’s another invasion war but it’s our ally this time so it’s good actually. They’re gonna dezanify^W de-islamism Iran.

seydor 1y ago

Tribal?

fakedang 1y ago
LoL exactly what I thought. Persians are extremely proud of being NOT tribal, unlike their Azeri, Afghani, Turkmeni or Tajik neighbours. Most Persians consider themselves proud inheritors of the Achaemenid and Sassanid Empires.
- Aloisius 1y ago
  There are in fact tribes of Turkmen, Shahsevan, Lurs, Qashqai and various Kurds in Iran.
  - fakedang 1y ago
    Yes, but overall the culture is not tribal, even amongst the Azeris of Iran (who were traditionally the largest tribal group in Iran). Within Iran, they see themselves along ethnic lines.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
mousethatroared 1y ago
About 10-20% of the population.

Buttons840 1y ago

Iran has their terrorist group proxies throughout the region. I think there's some truth to this, although the actions of some truly rogue terrorist groups probably get blamed on Iran because it's been the zeitgeist for a few decades to find reasons to attack Iran. Whatever the case, the current Iran regime hasn't given nuclear material, chemical weapons, or biological weapons to these terror groups. If the current Iran regime is eliminated from afar, with some fly-by bombings or whatever, what happens in the chaos that follows? Nuclear material and other weapons do not poof out of existance when the government that created them falls. Which group will control the nuclear material going forward? Roll the dice to find out.

FridayoLeary 1y ago
America and Friends. And by that i include russia and china, because even they care about other countries not having nukes. If/when the regime falls nobody will be able to stop them. Just look at Syria.
- Buttons840 1y ago
  How will America and Friends secure the nuclear material? Boots on the ground?
  - FridayoLeary 1y ago
    just a quick raid. The first thing to collapse would be the armed forces. It would be like stealing candy from a child.

mousethatroared 1y ago

And it's larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Both in population and surface area

bawolff 1y ago

I don't think anyone is suggesting invading with boots on the ground. It would be a blood bath, as you say, and nobody seems interested in that. I suspect what Israel is hoping for is that if they disrupt Iranian internal security enough, Iran wont be able to put down protestors. In the past there have been protests that Iran had to put down violently, so its not crazy. At the same time, hard to imagine anyone going out to protest while bombs are falling, and external threats tend to increase support for incumbants. So probably a long shot. What they will probably settle for is blowing up their nuke stuff and missles, hoping that the economic disruption of the war is enough that its too expensive for iran to rebuild it. Of course, nobody really knows.

csomar 1y ago
No, if you disrupt the current regime, you get something more extreme akin to ISIS. You can negotiate a peace deal with Iran, but you can't negotiate a peace deal with 50+ Islamic factions each running its own territory. That would require boots of the ground; and that's what the current leadership is looking for. The parent poster is correct. It is much easier to convince you into this if I tell you "We can solve the middle-east issues with just one click(bomb)!". That would get people in a FOMO where we have to act NOW and have this resolved quick and easy; or choose to be complacent and lose this opportunity. Of course we don't know how this will play out since we don't have any history except for the last 50+ years or so.
- bawolff 1y ago
  > You can negotiate a peace deal with Iran, but you can't negotiate a peace deal with 50+ Islamic factions each running its own territory 50+ islamic factions are unlikely to be able to coordinate enough to produce advanced weapons. While its an unideal outcome, its not clear that it would be worse from the israeli perspective, and they are the ones dropping bombs. > Of course we don't know how this will play out since we don't have any history except for the last 50+ years or so. There are plenty of examples historically of coups and popular revolutions where the new gov takes over the existing state roughly in-tact. There are also many examples of what you are saying where the country decends into a civil war. If you want to use history as a guide i think you need to analyze things more closely.