Hacker News Reader

Comment by spiderfarmer | Hacker News Reader

Ever since I consciously read and listened to people talking on tv and radio, so somewhere in the nineties, I heard countless military strategists explain why the war mongers in the USA were stupid to even think about subduing Iran by attacking them. Geography alone makes it impossible.

The current situation is not a consequence of modern warfare. It’s a consequence of the many layers of hubris, stupidity and arrogance uttered by incompetent people who put up a show for a shrinking audience.

The stupidity of the leadership in the USA is perfectly broadcasted in full view, for everyone to see, during Trump cabinet meetings, where he is undeservedly praised by weaker men and women. It shows all the weaknesses of the USA in just 5 minutes of watching that cringefest. You don’t even need spies.

View on HN

I don't think they're this dumb, just bought by Israel. Same with the Iraq war that was obviously bogus.

Sure, Israel played a hand here, but it’s hard to believe they’re getting exactly what they wanted out of all of this either. Regime change does not seem like it’s coming any time soon. Unless that happens, any reductions in Iran’s capacity will be temporary.

As for the Iraq war, Israel was supportive, but it would be incorrect to say the war was at their behest.

Relentlessly attacked its better to counter attack the to play the goalkeeper to exhaustion.

I don't see why Israel would want regime change in Iran. The current one may hate them, but it's keeping the country poor and weak. Previous regime was starting to be a threat.

Who do you think the previous regime was? The Shah was installed by the US and was friendly to Israel. Under the Islamic Republic, Iran has been hostile to Israel and funded proxy organizations that have been in conflict with it.

Shah Pahlavi was installed by the US but soured with us later on. OPEC involvement was a big part of that. By the end of his reign, he was openly calling the US a puppet of Israel and criticizing both countries' actions there, and the US considered Iran a free agent.

I think an honest assessment of the history reveals that the Islamic Republic has been far more hostile to Israel and far stabler than the Shah, who oversaw a deeply unpopular monarchy and was deposed by his own people

I don't disagree with this, it's just that there's no reason to assume Israel simply wants the least hostile Iranian government. We never saw a real effort to replace the Islamic Republic, not even now. Likewise there was never an attempt to replace Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

Well also, about Pahlavi being deposed by his own people, who really knows.

What do you think Israel’s objective is then? It seems rather clear to me that they have expansionist ambitions which necessitate defeating their neighboring foes, who are backed by Iran. A non-hostile Iran is an Iran that does not back these foes. There has been no attempt to replace Hamas because Israel’s goal is the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

They want to expand into the Palestinian territories and also want to not be existentially threatened, both of which require weakening their enemies. They aren't going to get a friendly Iran no matter what, but they can get a weak one.

They also need to maintain Western support. That's billions in both military aid and payoffs to neutral countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, plus diplomatic ties. Netanyahu's administration wants to maintain support from its own people too. Having enemies isn't a completely bad thing for those reasons.

Iraq was an attempt to create a democracy on the middle east and it disproved the whole leftist worldview. Not all cultures are compatibel and capable of democracy

Iraq war had bipartisan support, or more right-wing if anything. Any high-level politician saying we can install a democracy there was probably not serious about it.

Even I know that both Bushes were Republicans. But hey, if you ask me all Americans are complicit apart from the ones who actively oppose this regime.

I put this down to incompetence too. I know this is HN which mostly stakes it's claim on one side of the "culture war", but that is not where I am coming from - incompetence is incompetence, and we see that through the 2024 administration. (And I would argue - probably without much support here - a lot more incompetent than the 2016 administration which was unique in not actually starting new wars).

It's not even a partisan issue because mainstream Democrats support the war too, even though some of them are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They approved the emergency military aid to Israel right before.

They are compromised by Israel enough to not come out strongly against it, but not enough that I think they would have gone ahead with it - you need Epstein level blackmail for that.

I suspect the plan was (and still is) to weaken authorities in Iran so that the people take over. Or have the Iranian government reach a deal that would be less favorable to them.

A plan with quite long odds you could rightly say, but not as stupid as subduing them by invading them I suppose.

Who is the people, as opposed to who is in charge now?

US govt would've been propping someone else to take over if they were serious about that plan

Trump explicitly stated that was his aim, for the people to rise up after Trump did a little long distance assassination. The plan is far more stupid than subduing Iran by invasion.

"At 2:30 a.m. EST on 28 February, Donald Trump released an eight-minute video statement on Truth Social, saying that the purpose of the US strikes in Iran was effectively[vague] regime change."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war#Hostilities

Not saying this is a smart plan, but how is it far more stupid than invading Iran which is basically impossible unless you are ready for tens or hundred of thousands of casualties among your own citizens?

What about not ending a thoroughly negotiated JCPOA just because it was one of Obama’s achievements?

Who will ever trust the US enough to negotiate in earnest?

For the third time I never said it was a good plan.

He also said it was about The Bomb and nothing else. And that regime change has been achieved. And that the war is already over. Why do you feel the need to defend this stupidity?

There’s only one group of people dumber than US politicians and that’s the American people who support them.

It still sounds like a dumb plan, especially since part of it was the plan to put a hereditary king as new ruler in place - a king that lived outside of Iran the whole time.

And per analysis I heard in French media from Iranian opposition understood the war as a war of destruction, not as a war of liberation. As they continued to be executed daily by the regime.

Meanwhile one of multiple explicit day 1 plans was a plan to negotiate with successor within the regime - recreate the Venezuela situation where you keep the regime, keep its tortures, but put head more willing to give up oil on its head.

After all this, you still believe there’s a plan? At what age did you give up on Santa Claus?

It would help if the US didn't ignore the actual protests in Iran and haven't let the Iranian regime slaughter the protesters in hundreds or even thousands.

It was even worse than that - the US leader actively encouraged the protests, only to forget about them once the slaughter began.

"Iranian Patriots, keep protesting – take over your institutions!!! ... help is on its way", said Trump. And then... nothing. They could have provided money, weapons, intelligence, support of all kinds but instead chose to let their potential allies be slaughtered.

Similarly, the US facilitated the dismantling of Rojava, the Kurdish polity in North-Eastern Syria. The Kurds had been led to believe that they'd be able to retain some form of semi-autonomy, but the US pulled the rug from them at the last possible moment. And then, er, wondered why their cousins in Iran weren't willing to rise up against the government there.

It's almost as if they spent the whole of January putting themselves into the worst possible position for achieving their war aims. What did they hope to achieve by sabotaging themselves in that way?

From what I've read, Franz Ferdinand was the only one with any say in the matter, who could foresee the result of the war. So there is really nothing new about this.

The archduke, the band, or some other soothsayer who shares the name?

Yes, the archduke who got assassinated just before the war started.

And what did he have to say about Trump's Iran war back in 1914?

Nothing of course. But he reportedly insisted that war with russia would lead to the rise of communism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com