4 ms·

> it's a repeat of Vietnam I think this is a bizarre comparison. The people of Vietnam hated the French colonial occupation, and most of them despised the Amer

> it's a repeat of Vietnam I think this is a bizarre comparison. The people of Vietnam hated the French colonial occupation, and most of them despised the American-backed regime as well. They were fighting a 20-year-long anti-colonial war for independence (something that China, by the way, does not want any of the people they've colonized to emulate). On the contrary, there's every indication that the people of Iran, as well as Venezuela, legitimately hate their repressive regimes and want nothing more than a chance to overthrow them. This isn't imposing regime change on some country that had never thought of it. It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves. In that sense, our role here is quite a lot more like the Soviets in Vietnam, than America in Vietnam, or of either country in Afghanistan. We're not in the position of needing to prop up a puppet regime or find ethnic groups or exogenous actors. All we really need to do is target the existing oppressors. >> if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do. Stop with the AIPAC > blaming Israel for getting America into this. Israel did great work taking out Iran's defenses and gaining air superiority in the previous 12-day war, and it was only held back from continuing by the US - temporarily losing the total control it held. Furthermore, in no way is Israel going to be open to attack after this, whether or not the US remains involved. Consider what happens if this war does succeed in weakening the Iranian regime to the point where the people can come back into the street and overthrow it: Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer, the West has a bargaining chip in oil against China's control of rare earths, and conceivably there is a broad peaceful order in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shia and Jews, all relatively Western-facing, potentially progressive and aligned with the US and Europe. Would that be a terrible outcome?

watwut 8mo ago
> It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves. That is fundamentally untrue. In Venezuela, regime ended up completely intact, except the change on the top. There is no "clearing the path" and there is no "regime change". In Iran, protests stopped. The lead was replaced by more hardline lead. Nationalists now wont go against the regime, even if they dislike it. If they loose control over country, there will be civil war and unrest, but all chances of some moderates consolidating power went down. Or, even more likely, regime wont fail and will have stronger grip over the country. > Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer, This war is massive gift to Russia. The sanctions are removed, the oil prices go up. Russia wants this war to go on as long as possible, it is like a lifeline for them.
- noduerme 8mo ago
  >> That is fundamentally untrue. In Venezuela, regime ended up completely intact, except the change on the top. There is no "clearing the path" and there is no "regime change". I think there was massive disappointment in Venezuela that we didn't go further, and that the regime is still in place. I'm extremely disappointed that we let it off there. I'm sick of America making promises to people, since Budapest, since Prague, since the Syrian rebels... >> In Iran, protests stopped. The lead was replaced by more hardline lead. Nationalists now wont go against the regime, even if they dislike it. In this case, I hope we don't let the people down. And I think it's far too soon to say that the protests stopped. The Basij are out in force, they're more heavily armed, and bombs are falling. Next week or next month, the entire situation may be different. The people are certainly waiting until the bombs stop. No one goes to protest in the middle of a war. The idea is to create the conditions so that when the bombing stops, the regime is too weak to kill 30,000 more people in the next protest.
  - piva00 8mo ago
    It's incredibly naïve to think regime change supported by the people is actually the objective. It's a good thought but which is absolutely out of control of the military actions by Israel or the USA. The main objective is to neuter the Iranian regime to diminish how threatening it could be to Israel, behead the government, destroy military targets, destroy its lifeline from the oil industry. If regime change happens because conditions worsen it's a good bonus but without forcefully removing the regime with boots on the ground it's just wishful thinking that it's the main objective. Iraq was also under a brutal dictatorship with Saddam, it took more than a decade of ground operations to actually change it. Iran is more populous, has a much more loyal regime security force, is more ideologically driven, and has a much worse geography for any ground invasion. When the bombing stops there will be so much destruction that the regime can point towards the USA and Israel that it will keep having loyalists behind to defend them, the IRGC will absorb the more loyal ones and grow to keep stamping out revolutionaries.
    - ndiddy 8mo ago
      I agree with your analysis. A senator posted his notes from yesterday's private war briefing yesterday here: https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/2031531835453309125 https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/2031531835453309125 The US leadership knows they can't destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program or cause regime change. The objective seems to be mainly destroying lots of missile launchers, boats, and drone factories (which Iran demonstrated could do enough damage and use up enough interceptors to make Israel stop attacking them and sue for peace during the 12 day war). When the bombing stops and Iran restarts production, the US will go bomb them again. The US also didn't seem to expect that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, and currently has no plan as to how to get it safely back open. In essence the war is about making Iran less of a threat to Israel no matter the cost to the US or to the rest of the West.
ajnin 8mo ago
I'm amazed by the lengths Americans will go to try to convince themselves they're the good guys. America never has and never will go to war to liberate a people from oppression and spread democracy or other fairy tale. America goes to war for one thing and that is defend the interests of America and its proxy in the middle East, Israel. So the interests of the US are the continuation of its imperialist control over the world through oil and the dollar, and those of Israel the expansion of its hegemonic domination over the middle East. However this time, while Israel does indeed extend its hegemonic ambitions over the region by invading and bombing Lebanon, the US seem not to be in total control of what's happening in oil markets, the strait of Hormuz, and the toppling of the Iranian regime. There are many factors why, among which the fact that the regime has prepared for years for such a scenario and can not easily be killed by decapitation, and that it actually has partisans and the Iranian people is not going to simply revolt as one. This war is also a highly assymetrical one, and that's why the comparison with Vietnam is valid.
fakedang 8mo ago
Trump and Co. have already mentioned they have no interest in changing the regimes from the party bodies, either the communists in Venezuela or the IRGC in Iran. He has repeatedly stated that he prefers an insider. Too bad, in Iran's case, he got the toughest insider possible and had Israel kill that guy's entire family too. He even snubbed Machado for Delcy Rodrigues, just to claim a skin-level victory, even though Delcy is much more a hardliner than Maduro.

watwut 8mo ago

> It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves. That is fundamentally untrue. In Venezuela, regime ended up completely intact, except the change on the top. There is no "clearing the path" and there is no "regime change". In Iran, protests stopped. The lead was replaced by more hardline lead. Nationalists now wont go against the regime, even if they dislike it. If they loose control over country, there will be civil war and unrest, but all chances of some moderates consolidating power went down. Or, even more likely, regime wont fail and will have stronger grip over the country. > Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer, This war is massive gift to Russia. The sanctions are removed, the oil prices go up. Russia wants this war to go on as long as possible, it is like a lifeline for them.

noduerme 8mo ago
>> That is fundamentally untrue. In Venezuela, regime ended up completely intact, except the change on the top. There is no "clearing the path" and there is no "regime change". I think there was massive disappointment in Venezuela that we didn't go further, and that the regime is still in place. I'm extremely disappointed that we let it off there. I'm sick of America making promises to people, since Budapest, since Prague, since the Syrian rebels... >> In Iran, protests stopped. The lead was replaced by more hardline lead. Nationalists now wont go against the regime, even if they dislike it. In this case, I hope we don't let the people down. And I think it's far too soon to say that the protests stopped. The Basij are out in force, they're more heavily armed, and bombs are falling. Next week or next month, the entire situation may be different. The people are certainly waiting until the bombs stop. No one goes to protest in the middle of a war. The idea is to create the conditions so that when the bombing stops, the regime is too weak to kill 30,000 more people in the next protest.
- piva00 8mo ago
  It's incredibly naïve to think regime change supported by the people is actually the objective. It's a good thought but which is absolutely out of control of the military actions by Israel or the USA. The main objective is to neuter the Iranian regime to diminish how threatening it could be to Israel, behead the government, destroy military targets, destroy its lifeline from the oil industry. If regime change happens because conditions worsen it's a good bonus but without forcefully removing the regime with boots on the ground it's just wishful thinking that it's the main objective. Iraq was also under a brutal dictatorship with Saddam, it took more than a decade of ground operations to actually change it. Iran is more populous, has a much more loyal regime security force, is more ideologically driven, and has a much worse geography for any ground invasion. When the bombing stops there will be so much destruction that the regime can point towards the USA and Israel that it will keep having loyalists behind to defend them, the IRGC will absorb the more loyal ones and grow to keep stamping out revolutionaries.
  - ndiddy 8mo ago
    I agree with your analysis. A senator posted his notes from yesterday's private war briefing yesterday here: https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/2031531835453309125 https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/2031531835453309125 The US leadership knows they can't destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program or cause regime change. The objective seems to be mainly destroying lots of missile launchers, boats, and drone factories (which Iran demonstrated could do enough damage and use up enough interceptors to make Israel stop attacking them and sue for peace during the 12 day war). When the bombing stops and Iran restarts production, the US will go bomb them again. The US also didn't seem to expect that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, and currently has no plan as to how to get it safely back open. In essence the war is about making Iran less of a threat to Israel no matter the cost to the US or to the rest of the West.

ajnin 8mo ago

I'm amazed by the lengths Americans will go to try to convince themselves they're the good guys. America never has and never will go to war to liberate a people from oppression and spread democracy or other fairy tale. America goes to war for one thing and that is defend the interests of America and its proxy in the middle East, Israel. So the interests of the US are the continuation of its imperialist control over the world through oil and the dollar, and those of Israel the expansion of its hegemonic domination over the middle East. However this time, while Israel does indeed extend its hegemonic ambitions over the region by invading and bombing Lebanon, the US seem not to be in total control of what's happening in oil markets, the strait of Hormuz, and the toppling of the Iranian regime. There are many factors why, among which the fact that the regime has prepared for years for such a scenario and can not easily be killed by decapitation, and that it actually has partisans and the Iranian people is not going to simply revolt as one. This war is also a highly assymetrical one, and that's why the comparison with Vietnam is valid.

fakedang 8mo ago

Trump and Co. have already mentioned they have no interest in changing the regimes from the party bodies, either the communists in Venezuela or the IRGC in Iran. He has repeatedly stated that he prefers an insider. Too bad, in Iran's case, he got the toughest insider possible and had Israel kill that guy's entire family too. He even snubbed Machado for Delcy Rodrigues, just to claim a skin-level victory, even though Delcy is much more a hardliner than Maduro.