Imagine negotiating with Hitler to give up his V2 missiles and nuclear plans while the Holocaust was taking place. History will judge us for negotiating (and therefore, legitimizing) with the islamic regime that's occupied Iran for 47 years.
But it was asked what else the West could do beyond what it’s already doing.
It might be possible to do a targetted kidnapping/assassination without provoking a war. Or it might not be. Such actions become unpredictable fast.
You know that you are only speaking about diaspora Iranians. There are many many especially rural, especially conservative Iranians and veterans who would not welcome a war
The current realpolitik geopolitical fate for Iran is to be suppressed and relegated, regional players don't want to redistribute power / influence to accommodate Iran. Bluntly Iran is too big allow to flourish, but not so big it cannot be suppressed. That's Iran's fate under current dynamics, no one wants to save Iran, they want to neutralize Iran, naive to pretend otherwise. Iran is no longer in the minority of potential strategic intervention successes, its in the bucket of dozens of countries US intervention fucked over because that's the strategic end goal is for these countries to remain weak. If Iran wants bigger lightcone, it needs to fight for one.
Basically anyone anywhere in the planet other than the US would find your statement outrageous.
Israel has been doing it right, taking out the proxies and top commanders is what weakens the regime.
"Genocidal" is not an order of magnitude; it's a description of purpose. What's going on in Iran is an atrocity, but it's not "genocidal."
>History will judge us for negotiating
We're not the world police.
Oh, well that's alright then. Hey fellers, we got off on a grammatical technicality.
> We're not the world police.
It's your mess, now clean it up.
>It's your mess, now clean it up.
The US is under no obligation to the people of Iran whatsoever. If we take action in Iran, it will be solely to our benefit, and it may or may not improve those peoples' lives. In all likelihood, it will be another Libya or Afghanistan situation in which we take what we want and leave a power vacuum in our wake.
10,000 dead in 2 days.
> The US is under no obligation to the people of Iran whatsoever
Nobody can make you do anything, but the moral obligation is there. People say things like "we're not the world police", as if overthrowing the elected government of a country is nothing. It cuts both ways.
Again, "genocide" doesn't have to do with the scale of the killing. It's a specific word with its own meaning.
>Nobody can make you do anything, but the moral obligation is there. People say things like "we're not the world police", as if overthrowing the elected government of a country is nothing. It cuts both ways.
Governments don't have "morals". They do whatever is most expedient. We have never done something because it's the moral thing to do, and we never will. That's just not how hegemonic powers like the US work.
Yes sir.
On a second thought - who the fuck are you to tell the country with the biggest dick what to do. We'll be putting 100% tariffs on you.
we share a planet
That has been the bargain since WWII though. Pax Americana meant the US owned and enforced a global order, in return international trade and finance ran on its platform. Most Americans can't fathom how bad the alternative is to not being the world police.
Well, not anymore after that speech from the Canadian Prime Minister!
Then why did you overthrow their elected government in 1953? Which also set the country firmly on the path to the current regime.
I imagine you saying this in 1940, to a german jew refugee. Would you do it? Would you say this to a jewish person in WWII, to justify non-action?
> The British historian Martin Gilbert believes that "many non-Jews resented the round-up", his opinion being supported by German witness Dr. Arthur Flehinger who recalls seeing "people crying while watching from behind their curtains". Rolf Dessauer recalls how a neighbor came forward and restored a portrait of Paul Ehrlich that had been "slashed to ribbons" by the Sturmabteilung. "He wanted it to be known that not all Germans supported Kristallnacht."
This passage is particulary eerie IMHO, since I've been reading "I don't condone this" of current world events over and over.
> In 1938, just after Kristallnacht, the psychologist Michael Müller-Claudius interviewed 41 randomly selected Nazi Party members on their attitudes towards racial persecution. Of the interviewed party members, 63% expressed extreme indignation against it, 5% expressed approval, and the remaining 32% were noncommittal.
Also particurlarly eerie to me. Yet the regime went on.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorfer_Abkommen_(19...
Trump told them to stop and has sent quite a lot of military stuff to the area. It remains to be seen how that works out.
Most action from the West is likely to make things worse. Can you give a scenario where that's not the case?
WWII did not happen because of the Holocaust and nations around the world being outraged at that. In truth, the US and many other countries rejected Jewish refugees from Germany
I find it surprising that you're troubled. The West helped Israel with its genocide in Gaza; why did you expect that the West would intervene in what's happening the Iran, which by death count is significantly smaller?
In 48 hours, the islamic regime in Iran massacred more than 40,000 protestors (and left tens of thousands of people blinded/wounded, often "finishing them off" by raiding hospitals...). Some figures even show more than 40,000, but even assuming the low-park, that's 833 people per hour, or 13 people per minute who got killed.
Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers.
Now that's a record fast jump between "it never happened" and "they deserved it".
Also funny the wording "whatever they did", as if it's a mystery.
> Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers.
Israel killed about 300,000 people in the first month. Sure, it's a lower count per day, what a low bar.
From now on, every time anyone says anything about Iran, I'll be pushing the narrative that "whatever Iran did, it was to defend itself".
Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
Just to be clear. You're arguing that if a country is attacked, it's ok to kill civilians that are unrelated to the attack? Or are you arguing that those 300,000 were somehow involved in the killing of the 3,000 Israelis that died in the Hamas attack?
How on earth did you get that from my comment? Can you think of a more charitable way to interpret what I said?
So you're not saying that what Israel is doing is less bad due to the fact that it was attacked? So what are you saying then?
I guess that no, I can't find a more charitable way to interpret what you said.
> Israel was actually attacked
I was responding to your claim that Iran was defending itself... Whether or not Israel responded disproportionately to October 7 (it did), I don't think it's fair to say Iran's actions are "self-defense" in the same way that Israel's war was self-defense.
Disproportionate would be if they caught the October 7 terrorists and their collaborators, and instead of arresting them killed them. If that was what happened, I wouldn't be morally against it.
If a country is attacked, and defends itself, are you saying it should stop any form of defense because a civilian can die?
If this is the logic, then what would prevent armies from using human shields?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violen...
Hannibal directive: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-07-07/ty-article-ma...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive#Claimed_use...
That’s the fake UN number - in contradiction with Gaza Health Ministry.