6 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoWe're just one Iran-backed terrorist attack that causes mass casualties away from popular support for a war against Iran.
- alkonaut 1y agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoYes 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.
- alkonaut 1y agoIran doesn’t have air superiority (you probably misread which countries’ regime I meant…)
- ReptileMan 1y agoProbably. Since of the three involved only Iran has a regime. The other two have democratically elected governments.
- tsimionescu 1y agoA democratically elected government that then flaunts the law and the constitution, such as illegally attacking another country without congressional approval, is a regime. Particularly when it has historically low approval ratings.
- ReptileMan 1y ago>But Trump is still running ahead of his approval rating at this point in his first term. And at this point in his second term, he’s actually running slightly ahead of Obama and Bush at this point in their second terms. From Rey Teixeira. So obviously not historically low.
- tsimionescu 1y agoAccording to The Economist, not some left-wing lunatics or anything, his net approval rating is -12%, a rare negative approval rating. > https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
- zelphirkalt 1y agoIsrael's government is probably only in power as long as they continue to start and wage war against countries in the neighborhood. It was very convenient for them, that the attack of October 7th happened, just when ten thousands of people went on the streets to protest against their attempt to take away power from the judges and elevate themselves. In the US the election might have been tempered with, according to newest reports, so the government might not even be actually democratically elected and Trump is playing the autocrat's playbook, going as far as arresting political opponents without a warrant. Iran no question there. That makes 3 out of 3 in my book. I am not so sure your statement is footed on a solid base these days.
- czottmann 1y agoI wish I could upvote this more than once. Well said.
- abcd_f 1y ago> And it’s similar in Iran. Nice.
- alkonaut 1y agoThanks. Autocrat jokes basically writing themselves at this point.
- medlazik 1y agoMissiles don't sell themselves
- UmGuys 1y agoTrump only wants to get richer. He'll do as many wars as he can get away with. Laws don't matter anymore. He just struck Iran because he felt like it and announced it on his social media network. This is beyond Idoicracy.
- powerapple 1y agoYou think the not-Trump president would do something different? Not an American, but I have assumed the outcome would be the same.
- UmGuys 1y agoYes. Trump shredded the deal we had in place an decided on his own to strike without congress. No one else would have done this.
- palmfacehn 1y agohttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-president-barack-obama-bomb-map-drone-wars-strikes-20000-pakistan-middle-east-afghanistan-a7534851.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-preside... >...decided on his own to strike without congress. The US defense establishment has been looking to attack Iran for decades. "Decided on his own", seems inaccurate in this regard. The outrage over unauthorized uses of military force is largely performative partisan outrage. Although I would personally regard it as unconstitutional, it is the established norm for US Presidents to order airstrikes. There are very few politicians who have been consistent in their opposition to this.
- UmGuys 1y agoSure. Make a technical analysis of a casual comment. Of course he has support from others. At the very least defense contractors who profit from this. My comment was from his perspective. He only cares to get richer. There's always been an authorization for military force even if it's a blanket one and they claim they're fighting ISIS, at least there has been deniability. Here there's no authorization, it's unconstitutional. I don't care about partisan politics. Most politicians are scummy.
- lonelyasacloud 1y ago> 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. There's not been a President like the current incumbent.
- samrus 1y agothat read would have predicted the US not bombing not bombing iran, and yet here we are. the current administration doesnt care what people want. trumps own base is against and they'll still do it. the "nothing ever happens" bet is not looking likely. with the calculus trump and netenyahu have shown, this looks like its heading towards US boots in iran
- wat10000 1y agoIt’s hard to think of another president with a huge number of such dedicated followers, who actively hates the mass of Americans who don’t support him, and with a Congress so unwilling to exercise its power. Let’s say Trump decides to order an invasion. What would happen then? Mass protests? Surely. Impeachment? No way. Military decides enough is enough and removes him? Definitely not. He realizes how unpopular this move is and backs down? Lol. Lmao.
- lif 1y agothe protests in 2003 were massive