5 ms·

This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass

This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases. This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing and showing the world they won’t defend themselves is worse. The US will again bankroll another big, more expensive war to the tune of trillions more in debt. Another decade of war ahead with no end in sight. Meanwhile, new enemies will be made for the US as a young generation grows up living through this. The cycle repeats.

PeterHolzwarth 1y ago
Dubious proof?! Iran has been blatantly pursuing nuclear weapons for decades - and the west (along with much of the rest of the world and the middle east) has been working to counter it the whole time. Remember that in the middle east, Iran is considered a dire enemy.
- jameslk 1y ago
  Yes, dubious proof. A quick Google search can reveal this claim has been bs for decades, consistently evaluated by the US’ own intelligence, up until a day ago [0] But that doesn’t matter anymore 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056zqn6vvyo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056zqn6vvyo
- rocqua 1y ago
  It is very likely false that Iran had nuclear weapons, or was within weeks of having them. This was also the position of US intelligence, until they were forced by higher-ups to speak different words. Of course, Iran very much wanted the ability to make a nuke, and they probably could have had one ready in 1 or 2 years. But the proof put forward in defense of this strike is claiming Iran was weeks away from nukes. That proof is dubious. (Also interesting to consider how US retreat from the nuclear deal under Trump 1 has affected and shaped the current situation)
- gghhzzgghhzz 1y ago
  If it wanted nuclear weapons, it would just buy some from Pakistan. Their actions do not follow the conclusion you state. What is clear now though to any Iranian is that they should get nuclear weapons asap. Diplomacy is just a tool used by the west to string you along while they get ready to bomb you
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  No it hasn't, you don't sit on 60%-enriched Uranium for 3 years (they announced it back in 2022!) if you plan to make a bomb. IAEA also confirmed that Iran didn't have ongoing military nuclear project. The reason why they raised their enrichment level was to raise their bargaining power to force the US to come back to the negotiation table in an attempt to get rid of the sanctions. They almost succeeded since US and Iran were supposed to meet last Sunday, but that was not taking Israel into account, which killed the chief negotiator and convinced Trump to bomb Iran just 3 days in the “two weeks” negotiation deadline he had set earlier this week.
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago
  > Remember that in the middle east, Iran is considered a dire enemy. It's a dire enemy because they're Shia and the rest (with some exception in Eastern Saudi Arabia) are Sunni.
rocqua 1y ago
Do you think there will be boots on the ground? It seems more likely to me that Trump will escalate only through air attacks, fail to achieve much, and then either end the war by walking away, or throwing nukes. Quite different from the Iraq war.
czhu12 1y ago
I could be wrong in the end, but my read is that there really isn't the appetite anywhere near the levels during post 9/11 or cold war to enter a war. Not in the US, and likely not in Iran either. Its hard to think of a full scale war that was started by the U.S. that didn't have popular approval at the time it was launched.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  We're just one Iran-backed terrorist attack that causes mass casualties away from popular support for a war against Iran.
- alkonaut 1y ago
  The lack of appetite in the US didn’t stop this. And the lack of appetite among normal Iranians won’t matter much. War is better for regime survival than peace. This is a country ruled by a very scared elite that isn’t held accountable for anything and whose only means of survival is creating continuous distractions from domestic failures. And it’s similar in Iran.
  - gpt5 1y ago
    The Iranian regime has gone through serious military blows in the past and survived. Their best course of action is de-escalation and regaining domestic control.
    - alkonaut 1y ago
      Yes I was primarily thinking about regime survival in Washington, not Teheran.
  - ReptileMan 1y ago
    >War is better for regime survival than peace. Not when your adversary has air superiority and they can just kill at will the leaders and elite and not the schmucks. Israel's tactics is to kill important people and links.
huhtenberg 1y ago
Change of the Iran regime would help lessening the risk of a prolonged war. From what can be glanced from the news seeping through it seems that the population has been largely ready for it for a while now.
- UmGuys 1y ago
  What is this commentary? We literally just attacked them. We punched them in the face. We're doing the war. Not them.
  - huhtenberg 1y ago
    You must be trolling. In case you are not - the US attacked their nuclear research facilities. This is as far removed from attacking "them", as Iranian people, as it gets.
    - logicchains 1y ago
      You're the one who must be trolling. If China bombed American nuclear research facilities, I can't imagine many Americans would agree it's "not an attack on the American people".
    - zabzonk 1y ago
      Because of course no Iranian people work at those bombed sites.
    - karmakurtisaani 1y ago
      So if China strategically bombed some US weapons research facilities, that would be just fine and normal?
    - UmGuys 1y ago
      ??? WTF are you on. If Iran bombs US research facilities it's okay? I don't understand at all.
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      If Al Qaeda had just managed to fly planes into the Pentagon, would we somehow have decided "oh that's not really an attack on us?"
Narretz 1y ago
That's a big leap. Nothing suggests a ground operation or occupation, which was the most costly part of the Iraq war, and importantly, was part of it from the beginning. Experience suggests that Trump would rather walk away from Iran after an exchange of strikes and claim victory then double down in a land war.
- zelphirkalt 1y ago
  Which experience is that?
  - Narretz 1y ago
    Trump's handling of military strikes/operations, which have been mostly symbolic. Killing Soleimani, and not retaliating to the retaliationary strikes. A completely useless strike on Shayrat airbase in Syria. Pulling out of Yemen strikes this year because it was ineffective (never admitting to this though). Trump wants to be known as a deal maker. I don't think that has changed, he's just become more delusional regarding the practicality.
markus_zhang 1y ago
My hunch is Iran will bomb a US base, not causing any real damage, as a tough gesture and continue striking Israel.
logicchains 1y ago
>Meanwhile, new enemies will be made for the US as a young generation grows up living through this. It's also breeding a generation of young Americans that consider Israel their enemy: https://time.com/6958957/growing-antisemitism-young-americans/ https://time.com/6958957/growing-antisemitism-young-american...
- zelphirkalt 1y ago
  [flagged]
navane 1y ago
What I'm missing is that as one by one middle eastern countries are stomped to the curb, finding a balance between the countries gets harder. The more functional countries there are, the more room for negotiation, realignment, factions, and thus stability. We should want a muddy mess of interlinked allies. If after Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Iraq now Iran gets stomped, it's easier for the remaining powers to swing hard left out right instead of to continue muddying forward.

PeterHolzwarth 1y ago

Dubious proof?! Iran has been blatantly pursuing nuclear weapons for decades - and the west (along with much of the rest of the world and the middle east) has been working to counter it the whole time. Remember that in the middle east, Iran is considered a dire enemy.

jameslk 1y ago
Yes, dubious proof. A quick Google search can reveal this claim has been bs for decades, consistently evaluated by the US’ own intelligence, up until a day ago [0] But that doesn’t matter anymore 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056zqn6vvyo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056zqn6vvyo
rocqua 1y ago
It is very likely false that Iran had nuclear weapons, or was within weeks of having them. This was also the position of US intelligence, until they were forced by higher-ups to speak different words. Of course, Iran very much wanted the ability to make a nuke, and they probably could have had one ready in 1 or 2 years. But the proof put forward in defense of this strike is claiming Iran was weeks away from nukes. That proof is dubious. (Also interesting to consider how US retreat from the nuclear deal under Trump 1 has affected and shaped the current situation)
gghhzzgghhzz 1y ago
If it wanted nuclear weapons, it would just buy some from Pakistan. Their actions do not follow the conclusion you state. What is clear now though to any Iranian is that they should get nuclear weapons asap. Diplomacy is just a tool used by the west to string you along while they get ready to bomb you
littlestymaar 1y ago
No it hasn't, you don't sit on 60%-enriched Uranium for 3 years (they announced it back in 2022!) if you plan to make a bomb. IAEA also confirmed that Iran didn't have ongoing military nuclear project. The reason why they raised their enrichment level was to raise their bargaining power to force the US to come back to the negotiation table in an attempt to get rid of the sanctions. They almost succeeded since US and Iran were supposed to meet last Sunday, but that was not taking Israel into account, which killed the chief negotiator and convinced Trump to bomb Iran just 3 days in the “two weeks” negotiation deadline he had set earlier this week.
ExoticPearTree 1y ago
> Remember that in the middle east, Iran is considered a dire enemy. It's a dire enemy because they're Shia and the rest (with some exception in Eastern Saudi Arabia) are Sunni.

rocqua 1y ago

Do you think there will be boots on the ground? It seems more likely to me that Trump will escalate only through air attacks, fail to achieve much, and then either end the war by walking away, or throwing nukes. Quite different from the Iraq war.

czhu12 1y ago

I could be wrong in the end, but my read is that there really isn't the appetite anywhere near the levels during post 9/11 or cold war to enter a war. Not in the US, and likely not in Iran either. Its hard to think of a full scale war that was started by the U.S. that didn't have popular approval at the time it was launched.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
We're just one Iran-backed terrorist attack that causes mass casualties away from popular support for a war against Iran.
alkonaut 1y ago
The lack of appetite in the US didn’t stop this. And the lack of appetite among normal Iranians won’t matter much. War is better for regime survival than peace. This is a country ruled by a very scared elite that isn’t held accountable for anything and whose only means of survival is creating continuous distractions from domestic failures. And it’s similar in Iran.
- gpt5 1y ago
  The Iranian regime has gone through serious military blows in the past and survived. Their best course of action is de-escalation and regaining domestic control.
  - alkonaut 1y ago
    Yes I was primarily thinking about regime survival in Washington, not Teheran.
- ReptileMan 1y ago
  >War is better for regime survival than peace. Not when your adversary has air superiority and they can just kill at will the leaders and elite and not the schmucks. Israel's tactics is to kill important people and links.

huhtenberg 1y ago

Change of the Iran regime would help lessening the risk of a prolonged war. From what can be glanced from the news seeping through it seems that the population has been largely ready for it for a while now.

UmGuys 1y ago
What is this commentary? We literally just attacked them. We punched them in the face. We're doing the war. Not them.
- huhtenberg 1y ago
  You must be trolling. In case you are not - the US attacked their nuclear research facilities. This is as far removed from attacking "them", as Iranian people, as it gets.
  - logicchains 1y ago
    You're the one who must be trolling. If China bombed American nuclear research facilities, I can't imagine many Americans would agree it's "not an attack on the American people".
  - zabzonk 1y ago
    Because of course no Iranian people work at those bombed sites.
  - karmakurtisaani 1y ago
    So if China strategically bombed some US weapons research facilities, that would be just fine and normal?
  - UmGuys 1y ago
    ??? WTF are you on. If Iran bombs US research facilities it's okay? I don't understand at all.
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    If Al Qaeda had just managed to fly planes into the Pentagon, would we somehow have decided "oh that's not really an attack on us?"

Narretz 1y ago

That's a big leap. Nothing suggests a ground operation or occupation, which was the most costly part of the Iraq war, and importantly, was part of it from the beginning. Experience suggests that Trump would rather walk away from Iran after an exchange of strikes and claim victory then double down in a land war.

zelphirkalt 1y ago
Which experience is that?
- Narretz 1y ago
  Trump's handling of military strikes/operations, which have been mostly symbolic. Killing Soleimani, and not retaliating to the retaliationary strikes. A completely useless strike on Shayrat airbase in Syria. Pulling out of Yemen strikes this year because it was ineffective (never admitting to this though). Trump wants to be known as a deal maker. I don't think that has changed, he's just become more delusional regarding the practicality.

markus_zhang 1y ago

My hunch is Iran will bomb a US base, not causing any real damage, as a tough gesture and continue striking Israel.

logicchains 1y ago

>Meanwhile, new enemies will be made for the US as a young generation grows up living through this. It's also breeding a generation of young Americans that consider Israel their enemy: https://time.com/6958957/growing-antisemitism-young-americans/ https://time.com/6958957/growing-antisemitism-young-american...

zelphirkalt 1y ago
[flagged]

navane 1y ago

What I'm missing is that as one by one middle eastern countries are stomped to the curb, finding a balance between the countries gets harder. The more functional countries there are, the more room for negotiation, realignment, factions, and thus stability. We should want a muddy mess of interlinked allies. If after Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Iraq now Iran gets stomped, it's easier for the remaining powers to swing hard left out right instead of to continue muddying forward.