5 ms·

* * *

by tristanj 6mo ago

* * *

peter-m80 6mo ago
Hezbollah is the consequence of Israel Invading Lebannon.
- tristanj 6mo ago
  Sure, but Lebanon attacked Israel first (in 1948). Lebanon was the aggressor. Assigning blame to only one side is meaningless when both sides go tit-for-tat for decades. Both Israel and Lebanon are complicit in this mess.
  - constantius 6mo ago
    Same way as the UK attacked Germany first during WWII, no? There were many reasons for the Arab League, which Lebanon was part of, to attack a country taking over Palestine.
  - OutOfHere 6mo ago
    For the record, Lebanon also attacked Israel first during the war in 2026.
ranguna 6mo ago
Sources other than project flower?
- tristanj 6mo ago
  When I first learned that Iran-Israel used to have friendly relations for decades, I was shocked. Genuinely surprised. Here's the relevant part of the wiki [0]: After the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, Israel and Iran maintained close ties. Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel as a sovereign state after Turkey. Israel viewed Iran as a natural ally as a non-Arab power on the edge of the Arab world, in accordance with David Ben Gurion's concept of an alliance of the periphery. Israel had a permanent delegation in Tehran which served as a de facto embassy, before Ambassadors were exchanged in the late 1970s. After the Six-Day War, Iran supplied Israel with a significant portion of its oil needs and Iranian oil was shipped to European markets via the joint Israeli-Iranian Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline. Trade between the countries was brisk, with Israeli construction firms and engineers active in Iran. El Al, the Israeli national airline, operated direct flights between Tel Aviv and Tehran. Iranian-Israeli military links and projects were kept secret, but they are believed to have been wide-ranging, for example the joint military project Project Flower (1977–79), an Iranian-Israeli attempt to develop a new missile. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations
  - digitalPhonix 6mo ago
    You know that the Iran of then is almost completely unrelated to the Iran of now culturally, politically and even religiously due to... err... “foreign intervention”, right?
    - tristanj 6mo ago
      Obviously. The point I'm addressing is that Iran does not have to maintain hostile relations towards Israel. The two countries had friendly relations for decades prior. Iranians themselves also want to end hostilities with Israel. Polling of Iranians citizens show 69% of people believe the "Islamic Republic should stop calling for the destruction of Israel" [0]. The tens of billions of dollars Iran invests into fighting Israel are (in my opinion) much better spent investing into developing the Iranian people and economy. Spending billions of dollars funding proxy wars, fighting a pointless forever war against Israel, pursuing nuclear weapons, and firing drones and missiles at your neighbors is a foolish foreign policy. Iran is asking for trouble. If Iran had a different foreign policy, this current conflict would never have happened. Iran's situation was entirely avoidable. [0] https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/ https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/
      - digitalPhonix 6mo ago
        > If Iran had a different foreign policy That's my point. Iran did, and it did not work out for them so why would they try again? > Polling of Iranians citizens show 69% of people 67% of people believe Trump is doing a bad job; 56% believe the US shouldn't be in this war; 63% believe the US should stop supporting Israel. They're all roughly the same % as your quote, does that mean the US should change foreign policy? > Iran's situation was entirely avoidable Sure, by not dropping bombs on them while negotiation with them?
ElProlactin 6mo ago
> Iran's leadership changed post-1979... You mean the de facto dictatorship that was installed by an MI6 and CIA-instigated coup in 1953 and widely unpopular because, among other things, it used secret police to brutally suppress political dissent?
- tristanj 6mo ago
  And replaced with the deeply unpopular Islamic republic? The current regime is extremely unpopular in Iran. The regime has around a 12% approval rating. Over 60% of Iranians want regime change. Ever more (69%) believe that the Islamic Republic should change its foreign policy, and stop calling for the destruction of Israel. Iran investing 2-3% of its GDP (tens of billions per year) into funding a proxy-war against a country 2,000km away, that you had friendly relations with for decades, and has no desire for conflict with you, is an utterly insane foreign policy. To demonstrate the insanity of this: this is the equivalent of the United States spending $750 billion every year a war with Costa Rica. https://theconversation.com/iran-protests-2026-our-surveys-show-iranians-agree-more-on-regime-change-than-what-might-come-next-273198 https://theconversation.com/iran-protests-2026-our-surveys-s... https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/ https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/
  - ElProlactin 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - tristanj 6mo ago
      You've invented an argument I didn't make and then attacked it. That's a classic strawman. I never mentioned a Western-backed dictatorship, the Shah, or any conditions about Israel recognition. You invented that. My argument is simple: 60%+ of Iranians want regime change. 69% want the government to stop funding foreign proxy wars. The regime has a 12% approval rating. Iranians want something else. I cited polling data showing what Iranians want themselves. You can read the links I provided. The policies of the current regime are deeply unpopular. I believe that spending 2-3% of GDP (tens of billions of dollars per year) fighting an adversary 2,000km away that you had friendly relations with for decades & has no desire for conflict with you is an utterly insane foreign policy. This money is much better spent invested into the Iranian people. Building infrastructure, investing in the Iranian people, and building the Iranian economy. I did not advocate for a Western-backed dictatorship. The false choice you're presenting (Islamic republic vs Western puppet state) isn't the one Iranians are making. Iranians are not asking for a Western-backed dictatorship. Iranians are saying "stop spending our money blowing up the Middle East and end this pointless forever war with Israel". Iranians want a different foreign policy. You also accused me of not caring about Iranians, while also defending a regime that 88% of Iranians disapprove of. That's a strange way to show you care about Iranians.
mieses 6mo ago
[flagged]
johnbarron 6mo ago
Get your history right: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pVJ1Ci3MXs4 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pVJ1Ci3MXs4

* * *

peter-m80 6mo ago

Hezbollah is the consequence of Israel Invading Lebannon.

tristanj 6mo ago
Sure, but Lebanon attacked Israel first (in 1948). Lebanon was the aggressor. Assigning blame to only one side is meaningless when both sides go tit-for-tat for decades. Both Israel and Lebanon are complicit in this mess.
- constantius 6mo ago
  Same way as the UK attacked Germany first during WWII, no? There were many reasons for the Arab League, which Lebanon was part of, to attack a country taking over Palestine.
- OutOfHere 6mo ago
  For the record, Lebanon also attacked Israel first during the war in 2026.

ranguna 6mo ago

Sources other than project flower?

tristanj 6mo ago
When I first learned that Iran-Israel used to have friendly relations for decades, I was shocked. Genuinely surprised. Here's the relevant part of the wiki [0]: After the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, Israel and Iran maintained close ties. Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel as a sovereign state after Turkey. Israel viewed Iran as a natural ally as a non-Arab power on the edge of the Arab world, in accordance with David Ben Gurion's concept of an alliance of the periphery. Israel had a permanent delegation in Tehran which served as a de facto embassy, before Ambassadors were exchanged in the late 1970s. After the Six-Day War, Iran supplied Israel with a significant portion of its oil needs and Iranian oil was shipped to European markets via the joint Israeli-Iranian Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline. Trade between the countries was brisk, with Israeli construction firms and engineers active in Iran. El Al, the Israeli national airline, operated direct flights between Tel Aviv and Tehran. Iranian-Israeli military links and projects were kept secret, but they are believed to have been wide-ranging, for example the joint military project Project Flower (1977–79), an Iranian-Israeli attempt to develop a new missile. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations
- digitalPhonix 6mo ago
  You know that the Iran of then is almost completely unrelated to the Iran of now culturally, politically and even religiously due to... err... “foreign intervention”, right?
  - tristanj 6mo ago
    Obviously. The point I'm addressing is that Iran does not have to maintain hostile relations towards Israel. The two countries had friendly relations for decades prior. Iranians themselves also want to end hostilities with Israel. Polling of Iranians citizens show 69% of people believe the "Islamic Republic should stop calling for the destruction of Israel" [0]. The tens of billions of dollars Iran invests into fighting Israel are (in my opinion) much better spent investing into developing the Iranian people and economy. Spending billions of dollars funding proxy wars, fighting a pointless forever war against Israel, pursuing nuclear weapons, and firing drones and missiles at your neighbors is a foolish foreign policy. Iran is asking for trouble. If Iran had a different foreign policy, this current conflict would never have happened. Iran's situation was entirely avoidable. [0] https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/ https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/
    - digitalPhonix 6mo ago
      > If Iran had a different foreign policy That's my point. Iran did, and it did not work out for them so why would they try again? > Polling of Iranians citizens show 69% of people 67% of people believe Trump is doing a bad job; 56% believe the US shouldn't be in this war; 63% believe the US should stop supporting Israel. They're all roughly the same % as your quote, does that mean the US should change foreign policy? > Iran's situation was entirely avoidable Sure, by not dropping bombs on them while negotiation with them?

ElProlactin 6mo ago

> Iran's leadership changed post-1979... You mean the de facto dictatorship that was installed by an MI6 and CIA-instigated coup in 1953 and widely unpopular because, among other things, it used secret police to brutally suppress political dissent?

tristanj 6mo ago
And replaced with the deeply unpopular Islamic republic? The current regime is extremely unpopular in Iran. The regime has around a 12% approval rating. Over 60% of Iranians want regime change. Ever more (69%) believe that the Islamic Republic should change its foreign policy, and stop calling for the destruction of Israel. Iran investing 2-3% of its GDP (tens of billions per year) into funding a proxy-war against a country 2,000km away, that you had friendly relations with for decades, and has no desire for conflict with you, is an utterly insane foreign policy. To demonstrate the insanity of this: this is the equivalent of the United States spending $750 billion every year a war with Costa Rica. https://theconversation.com/iran-protests-2026-our-surveys-show-iranians-agree-more-on-regime-change-than-what-might-come-next-273198 https://theconversation.com/iran-protests-2026-our-surveys-s... https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/ https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/
- ElProlactin 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tristanj 6mo ago
    You've invented an argument I didn't make and then attacked it. That's a classic strawman. I never mentioned a Western-backed dictatorship, the Shah, or any conditions about Israel recognition. You invented that. My argument is simple: 60%+ of Iranians want regime change. 69% want the government to stop funding foreign proxy wars. The regime has a 12% approval rating. Iranians want something else. I cited polling data showing what Iranians want themselves. You can read the links I provided. The policies of the current regime are deeply unpopular. I believe that spending 2-3% of GDP (tens of billions of dollars per year) fighting an adversary 2,000km away that you had friendly relations with for decades & has no desire for conflict with you is an utterly insane foreign policy. This money is much better spent invested into the Iranian people. Building infrastructure, investing in the Iranian people, and building the Iranian economy. I did not advocate for a Western-backed dictatorship. The false choice you're presenting (Islamic republic vs Western puppet state) isn't the one Iranians are making. Iranians are not asking for a Western-backed dictatorship. Iranians are saying "stop spending our money blowing up the Middle East and end this pointless forever war with Israel". Iranians want a different foreign policy. You also accused me of not caring about Iranians, while also defending a regime that 88% of Iranians disapprove of. That's a strange way to show you care about Iranians.

mieses 6mo ago

[flagged]

johnbarron 6mo ago

Get your history right: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pVJ1Ci3MXs4 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pVJ1Ci3MXs4