448 karma · joined March 25, 2024
Iran founded Hizbalah in Lebanon. You can read what Hizb had done to Lebanon on the internet. Iran exported its ideology all over the Middle East right now: Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. It is a mistake to thing about Islamic Revolution as something not interested in spreading itself.
That being said sanctions did made Iran poor. So, it is not clear from the point of view of a regular Iranian if it was worth it.
It has plenty of commentary on the subject of how Iran moved its program into the shadows, how Iran concealed equipment, etc.
The sad part is that Egypt has an obligation under international law to allow refugees into its territory. But Egypt refused.
It was not us that said to Iran to fund Houthis. Some things are due to choices that are made by others, and not the US. I do not get this whole idea of denying agency.
It was a bad deal that structurally did not prevent IR from building a bomb. This deal did not allow for "Anytime,Anywhere" inspections, had a sunset clause, and simply put provided financial relief to IR for the next 20 years or so. You can read the conditions yourself, and you will arrive to the same conclusion.
> Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job.
No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics.
We may not like it, but it is the way it is.
> This is simply incorrect on so many levels
Like what?
> But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.
Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences. Even in areas with separatist ideas, like the Iranian Kurdistan or Baluchistan, separatists are an absolute minority. Unlike Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya do not see themselves as one nation. These countries had minorities ruling over majorities under the idea of pan-arabism, which is not a nation-centric movement at all. Obviously, when the regimes fell you have a situation where majority is pissed at minorities for years of oppression, and neither the minorities not the majorities do not see themselves as one nation. Add to this external funding, and you get prolonged civil war.
In Libya you have Qatar vs. UAE.
In Syria -- Turkey vs. Iran
In Iraq -- you have Iran vs. US (that backed transitional government).
Iran is nothing like that. Iranians see themselves as one nation for the most part. You can see it via the Women Life Freedom movement, which is supported by most of Iranians and is centered about women rights. Nothing like that can ever exist in Syria, Iraq, or Libya due to insane cultural difference between these countries and Iran.
> Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that.
Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela.
> A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come.
Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate.
> For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection.
I am not.
But Iran did violate the agreement. The agreement was not just between the US and Iran, it had other parties as well. Yet, when US withdrew, Iran immediately violated it. Why? If they had no goal to pursue military-grade enrichment, why violate the agreement?
Biden's admin did not resume the agreement as well due to those violations by Iran.
I see this agreement as failure for the reason that it did not prevent in a structural way Iran from acquiring enriched material, with or without violations.
> Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.
I do not believe that Iran is interested in diplomacy at all. They were never interested in diplomacy. Why did they fund all these groups around the Middle East if IR is so peaceful?
Well, if it's not the US, then someone else will. So, it can be US then.
> We subsidize allies like Israel with billions of dollars that have never been allocated by our congress, and which only serve to subsidize the healthcare of Israeli citizens while we continue to have nothing of the sorts.
Aid to Israel is basically giving them weapons for free, i.e., paying US-based companies. I have no idea how did you jump from weapons to subsidizing Israel's healthcare.
> "Bro, just trust me Iran is SO CLOSE!" for the past 40 years is not convincing us that this war has any benefit to us.
What is the purpose of having 60%-enriched uranium if not for bombs? If Iran has 60%-enriched uranium today, it means that they did start to work on it 10s of years ago. So, these people who said it were right.
I am not sure why you advocate for the spread of nuclear weapons, especially with regimes that are known to spread instability in the region.
> Americans are already on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt we cannot pay as a country, and now we want to continue exploding the deficit to the tune of $1 Billion per day.
This is a valid issue, and it has to be resolved. However, it has nothing to do with the war. With this war, or without, the debt is a structural problem of US politics. So far, for the past 20 years, everyone just kicks the can down the road.
> Outside of manufacturing consent on behalf of Israel, posts such as yours seem highly dedicated to trying to convince us that this isnt a pointless war from the American perspective.
It is absolutely not a pointless war. If this war is won, it secures long-term peace in the region, which will absolutely benefit the US. I have no idea why you think that having a regime that funds most of the terror groups in the regions, and spreads instability is good for the US.
PS And I am not even talking about how this would enable the US to focus on defending Taiwan from China.
You can read IAEA report yourself: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
No, I am not. It has nothing to do with Trump his abilities to speak only truth or always lie.
IAEA itself reported the 60% figure [1].
[1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
Sure. Now they maybe able to reach Greece. Give them five years and they will develop missiles that can reach France, or even UK. I am sure europeans would love the idea of fanatical regime having arms that can reach them, especially, if we consider that EU today does not have very robust air defense. Even Israel that planned for this war for a while has rockets that penetrate their defenses.
I would prefer the politicians not to take those gambles.
This is not a pointless war. You may not like Trump or Bibi, but geopolitics-wise this war make perfect sense on many levels.
First, it limits China's ability to hoard cheep oil as Iran has to sell its oil with a discount due to being sanctioned. China hoards oil as it plans to attack Taiwan and it understands that there will be sanctions on oil trade. So, to minimize the shock on its economy China hoards oil. [1]
Second, Iran is the reason why Gulf states are surrounded by instability: Houthis, armed and funded by IR, in Yemen make Saudis and UAE uneasy. Iraqi militias funded and armed by IR as well sabotage internal politics of Iraq the same way Hizballah destabilizes Lebanon. No one in the Gulf (except Qatar maybe, up until recently) wanted strong IR. These countries and their peace is essential for US and the world economy.
Third, if IR gets nukes, most of the Gulf nations would want nukes too. They already see themselves surrounded by IR-funded militias. We do not need more nukes, we need less nukes in the world. And I have no idea how people simply ignore the fact that IR already has 400+kg of 60%-encriched uranium. Why if not for bombs?
So yeah, geopolitics-wise this war makes perfect sense. Islamic Republic is major destabilizing factor in the region, and this war attempts to resolve it.
Why the current admin cannot articulate it clearly, idk.
[1] https://jkempenergy.com/2026/02/15/chinas-oil-stocks-and-rea...
Any form of supply chain was considered a valid military target, e.g., refineries, factories, assembly lines, etc. If an army relies on tech from, say a cloud provider via gov cloud, then it can be argued that disrupting cloud operations and thus hindering army's coordination, information collection, etc., is a valid target.
So, I am not sure there is anything new here.
Interesting way to describe the government the people of Gaza.
If Palestinians launch the rockets from Gaza to Israel, why should Israel to continue their trade with them? This is counterintuitive.
The moment IR gets nukes, Saudis and all the other countries around them will get nukes as well.
I don’t understand why everyone is so hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. We have enough of this crap already, and the last thing we need is more nukes.
Yep, now if IR survives, I see no reason for them not to double down on even longer range missiles. Like, why not?
I see two issues with this assessment. First, I am not sure how substantial is the support from the people. And second, Assad also had all this control over the military, the local governments, etc., etc., and then his rule collapsed in a week.
While Islamic Republic's repressive machine in the form of IRCG and Basij are in much better shape than Assad's, it is not that great if they had to bus in Iraqi militias to help with the suppression of protests.
I do agree that it is not clear if there are viable opposition figures inside Iran, on the other hand it is naive to expect it to be the case given the tight grip IR had on the country.
I guess we can hope that all this war is not for nothing.
Would you consider blowing up a bus with civilians a crime?
Yes. But do not think that the current regime in Iran is the one that overthrew the Shah. The current regime is the one that butchered and jailed the people who overthrew the Shah. It is of a less known fact, but it is the case.
> You also need to try to understand their point of view.
Sure. Every (even irrational) player has a point of view. Moreover, we can even try and understand it. However, it does not mean that we should not act.
As far as I know they do not have peace treaties with Israel, so they are less safe by definition, no?
Also, Iraq and Iran are not neighbors of Israel, only Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt are.
That's for sure.