6 ms·

The reason for the Iran war is very simple: Israel’s instigation, a potential strike against China, and Trump’s political immaturity.

Synaesthesia 7mo ago
The purpose of the war is to destroy the Axis of Resistance, Iran, Hezbollah and its allies, the only force standing in the way of US/Israeli hegemony in the region.
- geraneum 7mo ago
  That’s a purely ideological way of looking at the situation which IMO is not sufficient. As the article states, this war was not unprovoked either, regardless of whether the provocations warrant such a response. Iran is seeking its own hegemony. Now, this does not negate your point on the hegemonic approach of US in the region. I think this war can be viewed as a power struggle between a regional and global power that’s developing into a struggle dominance and survival. edit: typo
  - roenxi 7mo ago
    Is anyone going to mention what these provocations are? I've yet to figure it out after 6-12 months. Pretty much everything going on seems to involve the Israelis aggressively expanding their borders or viciously attacking anyone who might oppose their expansion. I've lost count of the number of negotiators they've killed. Trump has averaged something like 1 bombing run on Iranian leadership ever 2 years. Iranian provocations must be quite effective at making him see red.
    - geraneum 7mo ago
      > Is anyone going to mention what these provocations are? Sure, it’s not hard to find. These started long before Trump. You should look beyond the last few months’ news cycles. Iranian government’s issues with Israel are of ideological nature (according to the regime) and their open support (financially and militarily) of a part of Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah. Iran has been active at Israel’s borders for years. Their heavy involvement (including sending troops) in Syria’s civil war is another one to name. All of these are the ones that Iran openly admits to. You can’t explain these away with Israel’s expansionist tendencies because that’s not been a threat to Iran. No serious analyst believes that Israel wants/can to expand into even Iraq, let alone Iran! The hostilities towards US and vice versa are a whole different topic. Now to be clear I’m not siding with Israel on this and not saying that caring for Palestinians is not right, just answering your question and naming a few examples. Now, it’s all happened during many decades and not sure if it matters anymore who started it because it’s become a total shit show that is very hard to reconcile. You might find it surprising that during Iran-Iraq war, Israel was the only country in the region who helped Iran against Iraq (which had the backing of the Arab countries including Palestinians).
      - roenxi 7mo ago
        Would it be fair to characterise these provocations as all involving Iran providing resistance to Israel aggressively expanding their borders? Because these cases seem to have a tendency to Israel controlling more land at the end of the day. It looks like a pretty classic situation where an aggressive power builds up in a series of "defensive" expansions. > Iranian government’s issues with Israel are of ideological nature I think they're just good at threat assessment. There seem to be a lot of Iranians dying of Sudden Acute Missile Disease this month. Frankly I'm struggling to see what aspect of their actions aren't just common sense over the last decade, except for their charmingly simplicity in that they didn't make a break for a nuclear bomb when they first got within a year or two of being able to develop one. Israel and their supporters have done a very bad job of offering an explanation of why the repeated hits were justified or helpful.
        geraneum 7mo ago
        > Would it be fair to characterise these provocations as all involving Iran providing resistance to Israel aggressively expanding its borders? Considering the results of this war so far and the one before, as well as Iran's military strategy, it doesn't seem plausible to think Iran sees (or ever saw) Israel as a threat to its borders' integrity. This may be the basis for Iran's strategy in the region in some version of the future, but to extend it to what they've done in the past would be hindsight bias. IMO, the regime is not as much worried about Israel as it is about the US. Just compare the number of missiles and drones they shot at Gulf countries vs Israel. But consider that Israel, rightfully or not, can make similar claims, which actually conform to the Iranian regime's long-stated goal of "destruction of Israel". > Frankly, I'm struggling to see what aspect of their actions isn’t just common sense over the last decade. That’s because it didn’t all start in the last decade. As you get closer to “present” in this timeline, it looks more like a one-sided affair. This is similar to the view which sees the whole Israel-Palestine issue only from October 7th onwards. > Israel and their supporters have done a very bad job of offering an explanation of why the repeated hits were justified or helpful. True, I’m also not sure if this is going to turn out as they wish it did. Although the jury's still out, but as the article points out, it seems unlikely. edit: type
    - 3842056935870 7mo ago
      [dead]
  - mrexcess 7mo ago
    >As the article states, this war was not unprovoked either Using the same extraordinarily broad definition of "provocation" required here, can you name a single war in history that was unprovoked? And if not, haven't we just neutralized all meaning from the phrase "provoked war" with our overly broad definition of "provocation"?
    - lyu07282 7mo ago
      What you see here is the limits of liberal discourse on war, it's always 'here are the reasons why the war is justified' now let me explain why i'm against the war. Then discourse devolves into 'what is war even'? Believe in something, anything, dear god.
- ardit33 7mo ago
  It is to benefit Israel (so it can anex more territory in Lebanon), and it has no benefit to the US. The US had already a deal with Iran, which didn't threat its own interests directly. It is like leave a snake alone, but once you step into it, it will bite you. This war is only to benefit Israel, and right now indirectly Russia (due to the rising prices). Basically, the US is the main loser/sucker in this war, and we are all poorer for doing it.
  - Synaesthesia 7mo ago
    Israel is an arm of the US empire. It's a very useful ally of the US in the region. And when I talk about the US here I mean ruling elites. The US is doing just fine from this war. The US is an oil and gas producer, the largest in the world. So they benefit from rising prices. I'd say the biggest losers are countries like Europe, and neutral oil importing countries around the world.
    - decimalenough 7mo ago
      The oil and gas producers benefit from higher prices, in the same way that glaziers benefit from broken windows. Everybody else loses though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
  - poisonarena 7mo ago
    why would israel want to annex territory in Lebanon? Israel has fought in southern lebanon at least 2 times since I have been alive to fight hezbullah, they always go in, try to remove hezbullah and go back. From a geopolitical perspective what would israel gain by permanently annexing a this area?
    - overfeed 7mo ago
      > why would israel want to annex territory in Lebanon? Why are Israeli settlers annexing land in the West Bank? Why is the right wing government letting them?
george916a 7mo ago
[flagged]
- unmole 7mo ago
  > on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. WMD 2.0 The Electric Boogaloo.
- kenjinp 7mo ago
  This comment is simply not true from a US national interest perspective. The article explains why this was not done earlier.
- GolfPopper 7mo ago
  >on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons I've been hearing that line, from the same person for thirty years: https://www.news18.com/world/weeks-away-by-next-spring-video-shows-netanyahu-warning-of-irans-nuclear-threat-for-almost-30-years-ws-l-9392520.html https://www.news18.com/world/weeks-away-by-next-spring-video...
  - energy123 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Hikikomori 7mo ago
      Those people with a straight face was all US intelligence agencies and their leaders that also testified to congress as Trump ripped up the deal because Obama did it. Are you saying that all US intelligence agency were wrong?
- socraticnoise 7mo ago
  Isn't it interesting that the country that takes the nuclear threat most seriously and tries to prevent it is also the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons?
  - 7mo ago
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
y-c-o-m-b 7mo ago
> a potential strike against China I think this is understated in every analysis I've seen. I would bet good money this was part of the main selling point for the US. Just type in "China Oil" into any search engine or even filter the search to 2023 and earlier. China's oil consumption was surging significantly and they get a huge chunk of their oil through the Strait. It wasn't until 2024 I believe that they started reducing their dependence on oil; which I think suggests that they saw the writing on the wall and were worried about this exact scenario. China is America's number one adversary. If we're making large global moves, there's a high chance it's a strategic move against China.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- ritonlajoie 7mo ago
  I do agree. China has only 3 overseas military bases, and only 1 official one, guess where is it ? Djibouti, overseeing the strait of Bab-el-Mandeb in the Red Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_oversea...
- yanhangyhy 7mo ago
  i just remeber seeing a Trump video today and he is saying that 'china get 90% of its oil from iran..stuff' it's a good selling point. i dont believe leaders cannot understand the diff between 'iran's 90% oil goes to china' and 'china get 90% ot its oil from Iran', but i'm sure some people will buy it

Synaesthesia 7mo ago

The purpose of the war is to destroy the Axis of Resistance, Iran, Hezbollah and its allies, the only force standing in the way of US/Israeli hegemony in the region.

geraneum 7mo ago
That’s a purely ideological way of looking at the situation which IMO is not sufficient. As the article states, this war was not unprovoked either, regardless of whether the provocations warrant such a response. Iran is seeking its own hegemony. Now, this does not negate your point on the hegemonic approach of US in the region. I think this war can be viewed as a power struggle between a regional and global power that’s developing into a struggle dominance and survival. edit: typo
- roenxi 7mo ago
  Is anyone going to mention what these provocations are? I've yet to figure it out after 6-12 months. Pretty much everything going on seems to involve the Israelis aggressively expanding their borders or viciously attacking anyone who might oppose their expansion. I've lost count of the number of negotiators they've killed. Trump has averaged something like 1 bombing run on Iranian leadership ever 2 years. Iranian provocations must be quite effective at making him see red.
  - geraneum 7mo ago
    > Is anyone going to mention what these provocations are? Sure, it’s not hard to find. These started long before Trump. You should look beyond the last few months’ news cycles. Iranian government’s issues with Israel are of ideological nature (according to the regime) and their open support (financially and militarily) of a part of Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah. Iran has been active at Israel’s borders for years. Their heavy involvement (including sending troops) in Syria’s civil war is another one to name. All of these are the ones that Iran openly admits to. You can’t explain these away with Israel’s expansionist tendencies because that’s not been a threat to Iran. No serious analyst believes that Israel wants/can to expand into even Iraq, let alone Iran! The hostilities towards US and vice versa are a whole different topic. Now to be clear I’m not siding with Israel on this and not saying that caring for Palestinians is not right, just answering your question and naming a few examples. Now, it’s all happened during many decades and not sure if it matters anymore who started it because it’s become a total shit show that is very hard to reconcile. You might find it surprising that during Iran-Iraq war, Israel was the only country in the region who helped Iran against Iraq (which had the backing of the Arab countries including Palestinians).
    - roenxi 7mo ago
      Would it be fair to characterise these provocations as all involving Iran providing resistance to Israel aggressively expanding their borders? Because these cases seem to have a tendency to Israel controlling more land at the end of the day. It looks like a pretty classic situation where an aggressive power builds up in a series of "defensive" expansions. > Iranian government’s issues with Israel are of ideological nature I think they're just good at threat assessment. There seem to be a lot of Iranians dying of Sudden Acute Missile Disease this month. Frankly I'm struggling to see what aspect of their actions aren't just common sense over the last decade, except for their charmingly simplicity in that they didn't make a break for a nuclear bomb when they first got within a year or two of being able to develop one. Israel and their supporters have done a very bad job of offering an explanation of why the repeated hits were justified or helpful.
      - geraneum 7mo ago
        > Would it be fair to characterise these provocations as all involving Iran providing resistance to Israel aggressively expanding its borders? Considering the results of this war so far and the one before, as well as Iran's military strategy, it doesn't seem plausible to think Iran sees (or ever saw) Israel as a threat to its borders' integrity. This may be the basis for Iran's strategy in the region in some version of the future, but to extend it to what they've done in the past would be hindsight bias. IMO, the regime is not as much worried about Israel as it is about the US. Just compare the number of missiles and drones they shot at Gulf countries vs Israel. But consider that Israel, rightfully or not, can make similar claims, which actually conform to the Iranian regime's long-stated goal of "destruction of Israel". > Frankly, I'm struggling to see what aspect of their actions isn’t just common sense over the last decade. That’s because it didn’t all start in the last decade. As you get closer to “present” in this timeline, it looks more like a one-sided affair. This is similar to the view which sees the whole Israel-Palestine issue only from October 7th onwards. > Israel and their supporters have done a very bad job of offering an explanation of why the repeated hits were justified or helpful. True, I’m also not sure if this is going to turn out as they wish it did. Although the jury's still out, but as the article points out, it seems unlikely. edit: type
  - 3842056935870 7mo ago
    [dead]
- mrexcess 7mo ago
  >As the article states, this war was not unprovoked either Using the same extraordinarily broad definition of "provocation" required here, can you name a single war in history that was unprovoked? And if not, haven't we just neutralized all meaning from the phrase "provoked war" with our overly broad definition of "provocation"?
  - lyu07282 7mo ago
    What you see here is the limits of liberal discourse on war, it's always 'here are the reasons why the war is justified' now let me explain why i'm against the war. Then discourse devolves into 'what is war even'? Believe in something, anything, dear god.
ardit33 7mo ago
It is to benefit Israel (so it can anex more territory in Lebanon), and it has no benefit to the US. The US had already a deal with Iran, which didn't threat its own interests directly. It is like leave a snake alone, but once you step into it, it will bite you. This war is only to benefit Israel, and right now indirectly Russia (due to the rising prices). Basically, the US is the main loser/sucker in this war, and we are all poorer for doing it.
- Synaesthesia 7mo ago
  Israel is an arm of the US empire. It's a very useful ally of the US in the region. And when I talk about the US here I mean ruling elites. The US is doing just fine from this war. The US is an oil and gas producer, the largest in the world. So they benefit from rising prices. I'd say the biggest losers are countries like Europe, and neutral oil importing countries around the world.
  - decimalenough 7mo ago
    The oil and gas producers benefit from higher prices, in the same way that glaziers benefit from broken windows. Everybody else loses though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
- poisonarena 7mo ago
  why would israel want to annex territory in Lebanon? Israel has fought in southern lebanon at least 2 times since I have been alive to fight hezbullah, they always go in, try to remove hezbullah and go back. From a geopolitical perspective what would israel gain by permanently annexing a this area?
  - overfeed 7mo ago
    > why would israel want to annex territory in Lebanon? Why are Israeli settlers annexing land in the West Bank? Why is the right wing government letting them?

george916a 7mo ago

[flagged]

unmole 7mo ago
> on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. WMD 2.0 The Electric Boogaloo.
kenjinp 7mo ago
This comment is simply not true from a US national interest perspective. The article explains why this was not done earlier.
GolfPopper 7mo ago
>on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons I've been hearing that line, from the same person for thirty years: https://www.news18.com/world/weeks-away-by-next-spring-video-shows-netanyahu-warning-of-irans-nuclear-threat-for-almost-30-years-ws-l-9392520.html https://www.news18.com/world/weeks-away-by-next-spring-video...
- energy123 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Hikikomori 7mo ago
    Those people with a straight face was all US intelligence agencies and their leaders that also testified to congress as Trump ripped up the deal because Obama did it. Are you saying that all US intelligence agency were wrong?
socraticnoise 7mo ago
Isn't it interesting that the country that takes the nuclear threat most seriously and tries to prevent it is also the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons?
- 7mo ago

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

y-c-o-m-b 7mo ago

> a potential strike against China I think this is understated in every analysis I've seen. I would bet good money this was part of the main selling point for the US. Just type in "China Oil" into any search engine or even filter the search to 2023 and earlier. China's oil consumption was surging significantly and they get a huge chunk of their oil through the Strait. It wasn't until 2024 I believe that they started reducing their dependence on oil; which I think suggests that they saw the writing on the wall and were worried about this exact scenario. China is America's number one adversary. If we're making large global moves, there's a high chance it's a strategic move against China.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
ritonlajoie 7mo ago
I do agree. China has only 3 overseas military bases, and only 1 official one, guess where is it ? Djibouti, overseeing the strait of Bab-el-Mandeb in the Red Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_oversea...
yanhangyhy 7mo ago
i just remeber seeing a Trump video today and he is saying that 'china get 90% of its oil from iran..stuff' it's a good selling point. i dont believe leaders cannot understand the diff between 'iran's 90% oil goes to china' and 'china get 90% ot its oil from Iran', but i'm sure some people will buy it