4 ms·

I can’t accept the theocratic tyrants who implement terrorism, execute their own people and slaughter them as they protest remain in charge. They should be forc

I can’t accept the theocratic tyrants who implement terrorism, execute their own people and slaughter them as they protest remain in charge. They should be forced out of power. I wonder if the US had struck when momentum was high during the popular uprising, it could have being self sustaining, with arms and logistics setup to feed the resistance advance.

amritananda 7mo ago
The delusional idea that one can affect regime change through bombing is the cause of quite a bit death and destruction throughout the world. Maybe the problem wasn't the timing, but the fact that thousands of people were killed and millions lived in fear for the future for the past month? That's enough to cause most people to stand behind their government, no matter how reviled they might be.
- nixon_why69 7mo ago
  The second day of the war Israel gave everyone in Tehran a day-long oil shower. Imagine cleaning that out of your kid's hair, you're not going to overthrow the government that's shooting back.
- keepamovin 7mo ago
  I guess you’re right. I was thinking a peoples army, armed by US logistics and calling in US air support. But i guess you know more than i do
- throwawayheui57 7mo ago
  Regime change with air invasion is unlikely. The civilian casualties of the war is still significantly lower than the number killed by the regime (according to Amnesty International with conservative number). So while I agree that people don’t want bombing, I highly doubt that the war makes them like their oppressors. They love their country and Iran and islamic regime are not the same exactly.
- andrewflnr 7mo ago
  The idea there was bombing to support the popular uprising that does the actual work. I think that might have been the fantasy here, too, but it seems like the window closed.
- Gareth321 7mo ago
  I'm not arguing that Iran has been executed well, but military force has topled MANY regimes. If you're arguing "bombs" specifically and only, the U.S. won the war with Japan by dropping just two big ones. If you'd like a more contemporary example: Libya, 2011. NATO’s campaign relied overwhelmingly on air and missile strikes, and NATO officially did not deploy a conventional foreign ground force. The regime was finished by Libyan rebel forces on the ground. This is likely the scenario Trump was hoping for.
  - cassepipe 7mo ago
    Japan was on its last legs was and the US had already gone all-in with a war machine unlike anything seen before. At that point no one was going to lose elections about lost lives while invading Japan. The bombs were a time and life saving device. And the US army still had to actually occupy Japan after that (much smaller than Iran)
    - Gareth321 7mo ago
      You may be right about the political challenges (and I'm neither arguing for or against them), I'm simply pointing out that the war was won with two bombs. Perhaps it was wise to station troops in Japan after victory, but I don't think it was necessary. Even if it were, the peacekeeping forces were far smaller and there was almost zero violence. This would be politically palatable to Americans.
      - cassepipe 7mo ago
        Sorry I should have been more nuanced. Bombing can win conflicts but one thing is does not do is regime change. I'd argue the occupation was necessary: The political system that led to militarism was still intact and there were still factions against surrender until the very end. It was regime change per se but a regime transformation and I don't think it would have been possible without an occupation.
        Gareth321 6mo ago
krige 7mo ago
There was, and still is, no scenario in which US and/or Israel attacks Iran and effects regime change. Come on, we've been over this multiple times over the past few decades. Any direct military action will galvanize population against the existential threat, not against the tyrant who's still your countryman, no matter how rotten. If they wanted true change, grassroots support was the only way. Was, because at this point more than likely any revolution has been pushed back by a few years at least, probably decades.
- keepamovin 7mo ago
  I see your point. You don’t think most Iranians want freedom from tyrants? I see 90% dislike the tyrants, and 80% want Trump to eradicate them. Leveling the field for the popular revolution I hope takes over.
  - fyredge 7mo ago
    Would you want Americans to take Trump down yourselves, or would rather China come and take him down for you? Iranians have as much agency as Americans do. Denying them that never ends well.
    - keepamovin 7mo ago
      Iranians are not armed tho
  - krige 7mo ago
    This is a very naive view. Things do not happen like that, especially in the Middle East, where killing a tinpot dictator just causes two more radical ones spring to usurp his place. We've been over this where US military interventions in this century alone caused ISIS to spread like wildfire, and make things worse long term in many of the countries affected. I think some Iranians, perhaps even a vast majority of them, would like freedom from Khomenei, but the westerners have just conducted massive bombing operations, killing many innocent civilians at the behest of their mortal enemy Israel, so any freedom movements are at the very least very unpopular now, with people becoming radicalized by deaths of their loved ones, especially their children, pushing them into the arms of those in power, who can justifiably point and say "see? They are the enemy, not us!". One almost wonders if that wasn't also one of the goals of the invasion, preventing the formation of a secularized and stable Iran.
cleaning 7mo ago
Your post is ambiguous until the second part, FYI. In this conflict, it's a good idea to be clear on which nation you are talking about from the start.
- keepamovin 7mo ago
  Lol

amritananda 7mo ago

The delusional idea that one can affect regime change through bombing is the cause of quite a bit death and destruction throughout the world. Maybe the problem wasn't the timing, but the fact that thousands of people were killed and millions lived in fear for the future for the past month? That's enough to cause most people to stand behind their government, no matter how reviled they might be.

nixon_why69 7mo ago
The second day of the war Israel gave everyone in Tehran a day-long oil shower. Imagine cleaning that out of your kid's hair, you're not going to overthrow the government that's shooting back.
keepamovin 7mo ago
I guess you’re right. I was thinking a peoples army, armed by US logistics and calling in US air support. But i guess you know more than i do
throwawayheui57 7mo ago
Regime change with air invasion is unlikely. The civilian casualties of the war is still significantly lower than the number killed by the regime (according to Amnesty International with conservative number). So while I agree that people don’t want bombing, I highly doubt that the war makes them like their oppressors. They love their country and Iran and islamic regime are not the same exactly.
andrewflnr 7mo ago
The idea there was bombing to support the popular uprising that does the actual work. I think that might have been the fantasy here, too, but it seems like the window closed.
Gareth321 7mo ago
I'm not arguing that Iran has been executed well, but military force has topled MANY regimes. If you're arguing "bombs" specifically and only, the U.S. won the war with Japan by dropping just two big ones. If you'd like a more contemporary example: Libya, 2011. NATO’s campaign relied overwhelmingly on air and missile strikes, and NATO officially did not deploy a conventional foreign ground force. The regime was finished by Libyan rebel forces on the ground. This is likely the scenario Trump was hoping for.
- cassepipe 7mo ago
  Japan was on its last legs was and the US had already gone all-in with a war machine unlike anything seen before. At that point no one was going to lose elections about lost lives while invading Japan. The bombs were a time and life saving device. And the US army still had to actually occupy Japan after that (much smaller than Iran)
  - Gareth321 7mo ago
    You may be right about the political challenges (and I'm neither arguing for or against them), I'm simply pointing out that the war was won with two bombs. Perhaps it was wise to station troops in Japan after victory, but I don't think it was necessary. Even if it were, the peacekeeping forces were far smaller and there was almost zero violence. This would be politically palatable to Americans.
    - cassepipe 7mo ago
      Sorry I should have been more nuanced. Bombing can win conflicts but one thing is does not do is regime change. I'd argue the occupation was necessary: The political system that led to militarism was still intact and there were still factions against surrender until the very end. It was regime change per se but a regime transformation and I don't think it would have been possible without an occupation.
      - Gareth321 6mo ago

krige 7mo ago

There was, and still is, no scenario in which US and/or Israel attacks Iran and effects regime change. Come on, we've been over this multiple times over the past few decades. Any direct military action will galvanize population against the existential threat, not against the tyrant who's still your countryman, no matter how rotten. If they wanted true change, grassroots support was the only way. Was, because at this point more than likely any revolution has been pushed back by a few years at least, probably decades.

keepamovin 7mo ago
I see your point. You don’t think most Iranians want freedom from tyrants? I see 90% dislike the tyrants, and 80% want Trump to eradicate them. Leveling the field for the popular revolution I hope takes over.
- fyredge 7mo ago
  Would you want Americans to take Trump down yourselves, or would rather China come and take him down for you? Iranians have as much agency as Americans do. Denying them that never ends well.
  - keepamovin 7mo ago
    Iranians are not armed tho
- krige 7mo ago
  This is a very naive view. Things do not happen like that, especially in the Middle East, where killing a tinpot dictator just causes two more radical ones spring to usurp his place. We've been over this where US military interventions in this century alone caused ISIS to spread like wildfire, and make things worse long term in many of the countries affected. I think some Iranians, perhaps even a vast majority of them, would like freedom from Khomenei, but the westerners have just conducted massive bombing operations, killing many innocent civilians at the behest of their mortal enemy Israel, so any freedom movements are at the very least very unpopular now, with people becoming radicalized by deaths of their loved ones, especially their children, pushing them into the arms of those in power, who can justifiably point and say "see? They are the enemy, not us!". One almost wonders if that wasn't also one of the goals of the invasion, preventing the formation of a secularized and stable Iran.

cleaning 7mo ago

Your post is ambiguous until the second part, FYI. In this conflict, it's a good idea to be clear on which nation you are talking about from the start.

keepamovin 7mo ago
Lol